Hello. This video was really helpful, and saved me from making the bad decision of getting a 16GB 4060 Ti. Thanks! But I have a request.. Can you review a laptop for me? It's the Asus ROG Strix G16. This configuration specifically: RTX 4060 i7 13650HX 32GB DDR5 2TB SSD WiFi 6E 1920x1080 165hz. If you could review this, I would really appreciate it.
Well worth the premium on top of the premium 😂 This card should have been a 12GB card with a 192bit memory bus for the 400$ price point. Good job NVIDIOT!
it all marketing to lower the cost of the card and make better profit like the fucking mining boom in 2021/2022. I hope the market will drop and get better competition for better card for $ like more VRAM/memory bus, CUDA CORE and % uplift over last generation.
@@deagle7776 yeah performance really suck for the insane price or the 4060 TI 8 and 16GB. compare to the 900-950$ 7900XTX with 24GB of VRAM and 4080 ish raster performance. I know the NVIDIA rock with DLSS 3 and DLSS is far better in looking and performance over FSR and the ray tracing is also better with NVIDIA. I hope that ADM can get the same NVIDIA performance and upscaling quality over NVIDIA for less $
@@mehck-gk9yn What are you talking about? half, HALF of the total income of nVidia comes from the damn consumer graphic cards. The other big segment (~38%) is data center which only a fraction is AI. At the current time AI is just an investment for nVidia not the core of its business.
@@IcaniCorronobut not all consumer graphics cards are bought for gaming. Theres a huge chunk of consumers who couldn't care less about games, like content creators, deep learning enthusiasts, crypto miners etc.
The low bandwith is killing this card. 8Gb or 16 Gb doesn't matter if there is no flowthrough! You can make a 32Gb card, but with those lanes it wouldn't make a notable difference.
Right, Example. Played MW2 with a 4070 Ti @ 1440p , Ultra & Extreme settings with dlss on and was getting hitching which im sure its the 1% lows and the low memory bandwidth & bus on the 4070 Ti ruclips.net/video/MrMW750_d-Q/видео.html Pay attention to the 1% lows mostly, As you will see the gpu is holding high fps so most people look at that alone and think "Beast of a gpu" but the 1% lows tell the other story and thats where i think they crippled the gpu along with the 12GB of vram. Even it was doing it @ 1080p, Max settings im like huh? Because ive seen the same settings on a 4090, No hitching at all and even a 4080 would prob do better with higher memory bandwidth and a 256 bus, And the hitch is so fast you barely can notice it in video but the fact it happens tells me 504GB on the memory bandwidth and 192 bit bus isnt enough @ ultra / extreme settings and if games like mw3 gets even more demanding your going to end up cutting settings down to balanced or so which i believe will happen as mw3 will be a tad bit more demanding then mw2 That said, Again you look at the AVG or normal frames and see they high and it looks good. I think one time it went from 205-195 or so on general but the 1% went lower then 60fps so you look at the normal frames and see you not even close to 60fps and thats what gets people
yeah, but he didn't do a good job choosing the right areas of the games to test e.g. other areas later in RE4 and TLOUP1 use more VRAM and there would be bigger difference
@@parker4447 Still the fact they gimping the memory bus and bandwidth on lower end cards is bad. 3090 to 4090 doesn’t have this problem but going from the 3080 to 4080 and 3070 ti to 4070 ti it’s been gimped lol Not good
@@sadzonka Right especially when the 4080 has 716 and the 4090 has 1018gb or so. 504gb isn’t enough for the 4070 Ti. Your going to end up lowering settings a bit faster and experience bad 1% lows
well, full AD106 Full X16 lanes, 128bit yeah ok i guess but give 16Gb/12Gb 21Gbps VRAM at least and for price it at 329USD max then 4060ti is worth it 4060Ti 8Gb renamed it 4060 and price it at 279USD 4060 8Gb renamed it 4050Ti, and price it at 219USD everyone will be happy
@@Welly_FS1The even numbers series, are the generation of introducing new technologies. The odd numbers series, are the refined and complete versions, both in terms of the value and performance. Nvidia actually stated this, but obviously not many will pay attention.
As far as I can hear, this time around they don't reduce the spec on the lower memory one, usually they nerf the lower GB one, this time around they all same spec, just different memory. Hence, the fps differences doesn't show that much unless the game is needed way more than 8GB memory.
The main issue with this 4000 series isn't the just price/performance,it's that the introduction of the RTX 4070Ti which takes place right where the RTX 4070 normally would be,thus making every card down the stack a lower end product with a higher number and price tag. Now,you can say names are just arbitrary,but they aren't if you price the products by their names and not their performance tiers and specs. this in turn makes the RTX 4060 the RTX 4050,by specs and performance. the RTX 4060 we should've gotten costs 400$ and is the RTX 4060Ti,which in itself is marketed as the RTX 4070 and goes for 600$. the 4070Ti is what should've been just the regular RTX 4070,and they could've never managed to get away with selling it for the absurd price of 800$,so first they tried calling it the "4080 12GB" but that didn't work out and they ended up changing it,but still fucking us over just the same. Also,all cards have a crippling amounts of VRAM and bus width. Even the 4080 has been crippled to stay far away from the 4090 which in itself should've been called the 4080Ti since it's not using the full AD102 die to make room for the 4090Ti which will undoubtedly cost upwards of 2000$. But it's the "APEX" product so it makes sense it costs a gazillion-dollars right you guys??? YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT THE RTX 4080 ONLY COSTS 1200$! it's half as much as a 4090Ti!
I think you got it the wrong way around it would have been even worse if they kept the 4080 12gb because then the 4070 ti would have the performance of a 4070 for more money
This generation has been severely underwhelming, even from AMD. I genuinely wish I could just buy a console, plug in a mouse and keyboard, and turn off vsync. I currently have a 1060 3gb and there isn’t one card aside from a 6700xt that makes sense to buy right now. And I can see myself regretting buying a 2 year old 6700xt a year from now depending on what else is either released, or announced to be released in a future generation. Wish I could buy Nvidia but with the cutbacks and price raises, it’s just not worth it.
Wrong. The current "4060/TI" IS the 4050. It's just been relabelled as 4060 and price bumped up. The current "4070" is the true 4060. but again, that has been relabelled as a "4070" and price bumped up to 4080 levels... Just DO NOT believe in this NVidia scam...
@@CersionX Who knows. They could've kept the 4070 the same. The 4070Ti as things stand is an abomination of a card since it's practically in the traditional spot of where 70 class GPUs are supposed to be (GTX 970=780Ti,GTX 1070=980TI,RTX 2070=GTX 1080Ti,RTX 3070=RTX 2080TI,RTX 4070Ti=RTX 3080Ti) yet it costs 800$! a premium flagship price for a midrange product. I am absolutely astounished that GPU reviewers dont bring it up more.
not surprised at all by the results. It's a *50(TI?) class card named as a *60TI with a *70 class price tag, unless there is no other option then one would be better off getting an AMD card for the same price(or last gen Nvidia card if you can still find them). They are not bad cards, just badly priced.
Dude you're so right. I just bought an RX6600 for $189 that came with Starfield so basically $119. NGreedia are dicks and I'm boycotting them for gaming until they lower prices. Unfortunately, the 4090 is best for productivity so I'm stuck with it as far as work goes.
@@lancevandolah3493 KYS is bullshit 16gb is too much they would add 10. if you wanna use 16gb you need better chip 4060ti doesnt have this you need something like 4080 +
@zxc13x the rtx 3060 12gb has a 192-bit bus width while all of the other cards have a 128-bit bus width so yeah if course it outperformed the 128-bit 3060
I recently got this card. And it’s truly a beast!! It performs very well. However, This video proves exactly why every GPU enthusiast is so upset at Nvidia right now. They are not producing next-gen worthy features and are over-pricing for minor performance in return. Meanwhile, AMD is in the fast lane giving people a better value for performance. Hopefully, Nvidia will change and make their next cards better.
@@max-mq3vc yeah, I paid the price, but I came from a 6650 XT and let me tell you it’s quite an upgrade. Hopefully the next generation of nvidia will be better and if it is, I’ll definitely be buying it.
amd is in the fast lane? amd means ray tracing off. at least for anything below a 6800xt. amd is stuck in 2018. and they'll cope by telling you no nvidia card lower than an 80 class can raytrace either when in reality 70 and even 60 class cards can maintain ray traced 60fps at 1080p.
@@ImperialDiecast I agree with you even though it contradicts my first comment 3 weeks ago. I do love NVIDIA for their reliability. DLSS 3 is the ONLY reason I can live with the 4060ti for now. Ngl, I felt ripped off when I found out this card relies HEAVILY ON DLSS in order to produce Max. 1440p/ Med. 4k graphics. So I'll probably be upgrading to a 4070ti in the next 3-6 months when I can.
@@Apaullogaming i'd wait for at least one more generation. time will fly. you also have a big backlog of games, dont you? i think 800 bucks and above is a high price for raytraced 4k.
yeah use unrealistic scenario for most players rather then more aplicable one.... great idea lmao. you forgot that most people dont use custom assets at all and if they do, its the free ones not the more detailed demanding ones that cost as much as new game each...
This is for ignorant people, the 16gb vram of the 4060ti was made to be able to enter AI programs (stable diffusion) as a base since it is the minimum requirement to be able to use the program, it was not made for games
Thank you, but shhhh, we want gamers to trash it so it goes down in price, getting it for half the price. For SDXL this is a great card , in stable difussion as soon as you use all the vram it cripples the performance, so this one out performs in speed even the 3080 for high resolutions from the vram difference alone. The 8gb 4060ti would be pointless with a 3060 12gb around, the 8gb is for games
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly. To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
I was actually considering waiting for this 16GB version but ended up buying a RX 6800 instead because I couldnt wait. It has a similar price tag and turned out to be a good decision...
@@alivesurvive471 Im going look for amd graphic card originally but I doesnt have 2 pin connector with 8 pin or 6+2 pin or 6 pin and the power supply is 750 watts but I founded some model of rtx 3070 and 8 pin and 6 pins, but theres no dlss 3
It's simply because games do not have to load and swap textures when VRAM usage is over 7GB (some portion of VRAM is reserved for Windows and apps). 1-2 frames might be also within the measurement tolerance (something working in the background) as Plague Tale had 2 frames more on average on 8GB card. There is some propability of what you are saying is true, but 2 frames more is hardly a card seller :)
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly. To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly. To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
If the 8gb was a waste of sand, is the 16gb a waste of molecules? 3060ti 8gb 256 bit x16 lanes 4060ti 8gb/16gb 128 bit x8 lanes. adding more cache is a good thing, but at least keep the rest of the specs the same or better.
Useless Benchmark. RE4Remake image quality 100% 8.12 GB / 7.06 GB why not max it out? maybe cuz it may look the 16GB Card better? ofc the 16 GB Card wont look better if your settings are set up for 8 GB ..LOL by maxing out image quality it would show that 13 or more GB RAM are needed.
Basically the 4060ti 16 gig, is 15 percent faster than a 3060ti , and will only help in a game requiring a lot of vram, and will eliminate the worry of running out of vram in the next 5 years. I own both cards and I have done a lot of tests , and the 4060ti is about 15 % faster overall than the 3060 Ti. And the 4060ti can over clock the gpu to +175 mhz on the core and 1000 on the vram and run stable also. My 3060ti is slower in all 30 games that I tested verses the 4060 Ti 16 gig.
I own both cards and I have done a lot of tests , and the 4060ti is about 15 % faster overall than the 3060 Ti. And the 4060ti can over clock the gpu to +175 mhz on the core and 1000 on the vram and run stable. @@MrTorch-p4z
@@EarthIsFlat456 Most video around 16gb are fake benchmark lol this is, legit the only benchmark video and another one is from MSI stream recording if that counts.
Who would by the 16 gb variant in the right mind.. for 500 or more go for 6700 6700xt 6750xt or even the 3070 4070 that makes a lot of sense.. then buying this..
This video is finally the perfect proof I had been waiting for to tell millions of people from a few months ago when all those major hardware channels made their videos who parroted their statement saying 8GB vram is too little, you need more vram or your performance will tank dramatically the moment your vram is exceeded. Nah dude, just look at this benchmark as proof. What you need is more rasterization power. Better ray tracing cores. More memory bandwidth. All the good stuff that gives you more fps. You dont magically destroy the performance of a card by halving its vram. If a 16GB AMD midrange card performs better than an 8GB nvidia midrange card, it's not because it has enough vram, but because it simply is better (and ray tracing is turned off). Case in point, the 6800 vs the 3070ti. People said 8GB on the 3070ti is too little, it should have had 16GB instead, and because it doesnt, go buy the 6800 and keep ray tracing off. Nope.
You absolutely destroy your performance if vram usage exceeds vram cache which we have seen more and more of lately. Especially at higher resolutions. If he had run any of these games in 4k he would have seen a massive difference in some of these titles. 4k Witcher 3 with RTX absolutely can't run on an 8gb card. It crashes my game or blue screens my computer on a 3060ti. And yes it can run it at those settings it just runs into memory issues. With the 16gb of vram I would have a much better experience. Same for DeadSpace. Same for Hogwarts Legacy. Same for Resident Evil 4 Remake. Etc etc. Play testing a bunch of last gen titles at 1440p resolution does not instantly prove 8gb is enough. It's just copium lol.
@@lazarusfitness3892 so you think a 16gb 4060ti will have smooth sailing at 20 to 30 fps at hogwarts legacy in 4k with ray tracing while 8GB cards will BSOD?
@@ImperialDiecast can't you see that in Hogwarts Legacy DLSS and frame generation were off? it would get at least 55fps with FG alone. he turned it off because it would use more vram and make the 8gb card look bad..
9:12 This doesn't make any fking sense to me, if Hogwarts legacy is using 7GB on the 8g variant and 10GB on the 16g variant then why the fps is still the same ? why doesn't the vram limitations cause the fps drop, are u sure u running the same settings
I have the 16 gb version and using the new 12gb file texture pack for cyberpunk. running at 1080p and it's using 14gb vram. i can imagine how the 8gb version would perform. the video has some kind of voodoo trickery going on. like you said. the 8gb version should perform way slower in games that surpasses the 8gb vram threshold. the guy from classical technology channel did the same comparison in a video called Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti 16GB vs 8GB, Surprising. and the massive performance gained with 16gb is clearly shown.
Not sure if it worth the money for everyone else but check the 1% and 0.1%, are way better in almost every game. That translates to smoother gameplay, less hiccups and stuttering.
To be fair, as an amd user I loved the 4090 best card ever but it was outa reach for 90% of users, 4080 was also good but again outa reach for 70% of people @£1200 msrp madness, £1500 aib`s. Maybe 4000 series will be a lesson to Nvidia this gen.
The test is not very clear on the advantage of having more vrams since it only test at 1440p and without ray tracing. Typically, you use more vram as you go higher in resolutions. The 4060 ti 16gb really only shine at that kind of condition where vram usage exceed 8gb. That usually doesn't occur at 1080p, it can occur for 1440p at some games which affect the 1% low. In 4k, you can find more games exceeding 8gb vrams. A several lack of vrams will not stop at affecting the 1% low but also affect the peak fps. If you activate ray tracing, the vram demands will go up as well so in 1080p, it is possible to see lack of vram thus affect 1%. In today's gaming scene, to run 1080p at max settings with all the fancy graphical enhancements, you need at least 12gb. 1440p will be 16gb while 4k will be good at 24gb.
for example, I live in Russia, and here a new 3060ti costs more than a 4060ti, while on the secondary market the price for them is the same, but approximately 95% of all 3060ti come after mining, people don’t want to play the lottery, so they take the 4060ti because it newer and most likely not mined.
A 4060 ti will ONLY shine in games that use a LOT of vram so it can store large video texture packs easily in vram. If a game uses less than 8 gig of ram, the extra vram on any card does not matter at all. The test need to be done on a various games. Average and high demand vram games. You can set up a test to produce almost any outcome you like. But, Nvidia does not give the right amount of vram at the right price , AMD does. And in reality, if anyone that has researched and does agrees with that last statement, they have NO clue what they are talking about. To get 16 gig on a Nvidia card really cost too much vs AMD. I use Nvidia , so that is just the price I had to pay. I am not a fanboy of either company. Just stating FACTS. If AMD could get the driver issues fixed to make it a non issue, they would increase they annual profits by 5 to 10 times what it is now. AMD seems to try to be more gaming community friendly with what they offer for the price. Nvidia makes the more superior product (software drivers in particular) , so it is overpriced. Please, do your own research before you buy. Also, I have tested the dlss3 frame generation and it is really good. It definitely smooths out the image quality, and gives a really good gaming experience.
People say there is no difference, of course there is in games which demands more than 8GB VRAM, this gonna become even more common, see Ratchet & Clank benchmarks, the 16GB model even with 128 bits uses almost 12GB and been ahead about 34% in 1080p than the 8GB model and more than 40% in 1440p, is not that bad for using for a few years, 8GB other hand in a few years is gonna struggle much more mostly in 1% and 0.1% lows and textures load failing. The problem is the price of course, but the 8GB model in my opinion is worst than 16GB.
what do you expect when he used 2gb textures for resident evil instead of 8gb? Ratchet & Clank is using 13.5-14gb for me at 4k DLSS FG. Classical Technology channel did a comparison showing that there is almost double fps VS the 8GB version. these guys will drop the graphical settings just to make there point lol
The 16gb are obviously not going to improve FPS if the game doesn't use them. They are mainly interesting for people who do 3d renders or editing where high VRAM is required. Fake outrage.
Now test them using phgotography/video and AI apps, and see the difference. 16gb one is more than worth it if your life doesn't revolve around playing games.
GPU specs didn't change, only amount of VRAM, we know that amount of RAM doesn't affect performance unless it not enough, so i'm not really surprised there is no difference in a games that are using less than 8GB of VRAM and if that difference exists, it's not much.
In RE 4 texture quality only high (2gb) preset there will be almost no difference as expected. If we want to see the differences we need 4K benchmarks with DLSS with/without FG. That would be interesting
@@ЕгорВ-т2б yea, and people still cry about their 8gb gpu cant run ultra setting where in fact its just an arbitrary terms, at least capcom put texture description in the settings for people to understand it
@@Mako2401 No, you won’t buy it for 4K gaming. But if you want to have an picture of how well this card will age in the near future (Games will get more VRAM hungry), the 4K DLSS + FG bench can give you some answers
The 16GB Version seems to have a better cooler and so it clocks a bit higher. This is the only explanation the 16 GB Version isn´t a bit slower in every case. According to Amdal's law, the 16 GB version has to be clocked a bit higher in order not to be slightly slower, as long it doesn't reach the V-Ram limit, which will never happen.
From what I gather, it's not worth getting the Ti version with 12-16GB of VRAM unless you're running games at 1440p-4K with really high to ultra settings and rtx on. If you're on 1080p and running high settings (not ultra) you are golden. That's where I am. I don't care for 4k and I don't have a 1440p monitor. I prefer more frames over higher resolution. I think I'll get the 8gb version and let it ride until my machine is obsolete.
In The Last of Us Part I, when you set the graphics settings with an expected VRAM usage of 9.3GB, the 16GB card pulled ahead. In Resident Evil 4, when you set the graphics settings with an expected 8.12GB VRAM usage (just barely over the capacity of the 8GB card), it made no difference. So the question when gaming today is: Do you specifically play the literally three or so games that still have this issue a week after launch, and do you need to bump those settings where the VRAM usage is *significantly* more than 8GB?? (My opinion: Please just lower the settings, don't spend an extra $100...) The question for long term is, will games start ramping up VRAM usage dramatically in the coming years, to where it is hard to set settings with low enough VRAM usage without making the game look bad? Related: Will companies be able to do that when most people own a card with 8GB or less VRAM? (Steam Hardware Survey says ~14.2% of Steam users have 12GB or more VRAM. A full 80% of Steam users have 8GB or less VRAM. The most common VRAM amounts are 8GB (27.53% of users) and 6GB (21.06% of users).) I hope game makers will continue to make their games comfortably and enjoyably playable on 8GB or even 6GB of VRAM, especially with NVidia not providing more than that in most of this gen... Who is going to play a game that stutters below 12 or 16GB VRAM? Only ~15% of gamers???
"pulled ahead" by like 2 fps lol. vram is overrated when it comes to fps. i think the biggest benefits of having enough vram is that you will have better frametime and less occasional stutters which you cant see in this gameplay video that only compares fps. but this idea that if you run out of vram, your fps dramatically decreases has been proven false.
@@ImperialDiecast I mostly am looking at how smooth the frametime graph is (less stutters ... probably makes more difference in actual play, with quick pans for aiming, than in the cutscene shown in the video) and how the 1% and 0.1% lows pulled ahead by ~10-12FPS, and ~16fps, respectively. It makes a difference, but so does reducing settings a bit so VRAM use isn't overflowing capacity. And so does not playing The Last of Us or like two or three other games right now that have this issue. (Or avoiding 4K resolutions, etc.) Will realistically be more of an issue in time, but how soon I have no idea. Hopefully not very soon.
wtf? ... what is the essence of the comparison if the settings are not maximum and reduced for 8 GB of video memory? (see 7:16 re 4 texture quality - 2GB is selected in settings instead of 8 Gb)
Kinda the same thing with the 4GB and 8GB RX 480..... the only reason to buy the card w/ more VRAM is for future games. This benchmark should be revisited in a year, then a year after that. This should also be tested at 3440x1440. The 16GB version will matter more to people who run multiple monitors.
i mean do you people know about anything else but games ? gpus are not just for games and extra vram for games ofc wont do much difference as 99% of the games dont need as much vram as most gpus have these days
Lamentable, acabo de comprar mi 4060 ti de 8gb para jugar en 1080p por mi monitor, ya que no podía cambiar a Amd porque mi fuente no me lo permite, sabía que no valía la pena esperar a la de 16gb.
The 4060 and 4060 Ti are an absolute fucking disgrace. They are awfully slow for modern 60 class GPUs. The 4060 Ti even gets outperformed by the 3060 Ti in some games, which is just assaulting. 16 GB of VRAM is completely overkill for a GPU with these crappy specs. To give you an idea of how bad these GPUs are, remember when the 3060 Ti came out for $399 and outperformed the $699 2080 Super in most cases? Now the 4060 Ti comes out and doesn't even match the previous gen 70 class GPU and even gets outperformed by the 3060 Ti in a lot of cases. Nvidia is giving their entry level and mid range GPUs the bare minimum amount of hardware, which is why they are hardly faster than their previous gen counterparts in raw performance. They are using software technologies such as DLSS and Frame Gen as the main selling points of their GPUs, which is a huge problem. We need to put a stop to this. Mid range GPUs nowadays are nothing but a massive scam.
We all know it's issue is 128 but memory bus , bandwidth is so shitty it can't utilize more than 8 gb , 16 gb vram is wasted on 128 bit bus . But on 256 bit bus , 16 gb vram will come in handy , Rtx4070 with 16 gb would post 15% better performance. But on rtx4060 ti , it's wasted.
This card 4060 ti 16g is not for games - Blender, 3d Da Vinci , Adobe Premiere , Stable diffusion and other Ai . just wait for new Ai drivers the you see the power of this architecture. Do a test with stable diffusion image generation or AI video?
generally speaking, the games that need more vram work very well and even way smoother than the 8gb version. watch again the video and see resident evil when he only used 2gb texture pack instead of 8gb just to make the point that there is no difference lol. the whole video methodology is flawed. SD runs great on my 16gb version as well.
where are the people who said that you need more VRAM to have better performance? now how are they going to defend what AMD said about more VRAM in games and its performance. The technology to have more performance is already there but they refuse to use it because they say they are "fake frames", please!
It's expected Naturally, there is no difference between them Because they are the same specifications and the only difference is the V-RAM You may find some differences on the 4K But the card is not directed at that accuracy in the first place So don't waste your money on it I think it's just the reviewers who are going to buy it Thank you for wasting your money to show us the difference!
Imagine releasing The Last of Us, a game that looked so beautiful and was so immersive on that super old Playstation hardware, yet not even being able to make it run at 60 fps on the latest generation of graphics cards. It's really mindblowing.
@testinggames, hey there, would.you be willing to do a pcie generational benchmark for this card? If you haven't already? I'd be interested to see if that x8 connection makes it useless for older systems
serious question... i need one for my DAZ studio... will it worth it more a 4060ti or a 4060 ? considering the most important in DAZ is the CUDA cores and the ram... (and no, i can't afford 4070 or higher... GC are already overpriced in my country (france))
People, if the game you are playing doesnt require more than 8GB, the 16GB won't give you any more frames. FPS is more about CUDA and bus size. If Nvidia had given the 16GB a wider bus, then they would be shooting the 4070 card(s) in the foot. Now pump it up to 4K then you will more likely see the 8GB choke vs 16GB. Lastly, gamers need to stop thinking GPUs are only made for them, they are also made for productivity. 3D animators plus LLM generators will gladly tell you how much more performance they get out of 16GB, not faster due to CUDA & bus but produce larger files.
Reading the comments, it's really a shame not many knows GPUs aren't only for gaming. Anyway thanks for the video, now I knew for sure that 16GB draw slightly more power than 8GB, please continue your great job 👍
As someone with an 8GB version, with no reason to reject the confirmation bias this provides: Is there anything to be said for the 16GB version maybe being better for the more demanding games that are yet to be made?
There are other uses for gpu other than gaming. All the outrage you see for the 4060ti 16gb usually come from people who see its uselessness in game fps. For AI/machine learning, this is a pretty good gpu specifically because of the vram if you don't wanna get a 4080 for as much vram.
since you have the 8gb version. try the new cyberpunk ultra texture pack. it's a 12gb file on nexusmod. i have the 16gb version and it's using 14gb vram. also, ratchet and clank needs more than 8gb vram maxedout. uses around 13.5gb vram at 4k
Because higher looks exactly the same people have no idea how this works. 2gb is enough to load textures around you in good quality 3gb is probably 100% enough and more is overkill. Pre-loading more textures may reduce stuttering and pop in but i dont think that SSD would cause pop in or stuttering related to assets loading maybe if you have game on HDD.
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
Games :
God of War - 0:16 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesGoWPC
The Last of Us Part I - 1:07
Red Dead Redemption 2 - 2:19 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesRDR2
Forza Horizon 5 - 3:20 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesForza5
A Plague Tale: Requiem - 4:19
Hitman 3 - 5:17 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesHitman3
CYBERPUNK 2077 - 6:07 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesCP2077
Resident Evil 4 - 7:12
Hogwarts Legacy - 8:24 - gvo.deals/TG3HogwartsLegacy
Microsoft Flight Simulator - 9:25 - gvo.deals/TestingGamesMFS20
System:
Windows 11
Core i9-13900K - bit.ly/3SgY3xf
ASUS ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming - bit.ly/3scEZpc
G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB 32GB DDR5 6000MHz CL38
CPU Cooler - Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420 - bit.ly/3Pn2xVx
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB - bit.ly/3WvSYou
GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB - bit.ly/3Om3RXu
SSD - 2xSAMSUNG 970 EVO M.2 2280 1TB - bit.ly/2NmWeQe
Power Supply CORSAIR RM850i 850W - bit.ly/3i2VoGI
These two cards separate out a bit more at 4k.
Hello. This video was really helpful, and saved me from making the bad decision of getting a 16GB 4060 Ti. Thanks! But I have a request.. Can you review a laptop for me? It's the Asus ROG Strix G16.
This configuration specifically:
RTX 4060
i7 13650HX
32GB DDR5
2TB SSD
WiFi 6E
1920x1080 165hz.
If you could review this, I would really appreciate it.
what resolution was this test at
I noticed the 16GB always has cooler temperature.
Well worth the premium on top of the premium 😂 This card should have been a 12GB card with a 192bit memory bus for the 400$ price point. Good job NVIDIOT!
🤣
Реально нвидиот
@user-lk6ev9ky9x Omg.... really???
@@SSJfraz Yes yes, they keep demand for more VRAM. So we give you more VRAM now. 👍
it all marketing to lower the cost of the card and make better profit like the fucking mining boom in 2021/2022. I hope the market will drop and get better competition for better card for $ like more VRAM/memory bus, CUDA CORE and % uplift over last generation.
$100 for 1 fps difference. What a time to be alive.
Worst gaming gpu
@@deagle7776 yeah performance really suck for the insane price or the 4060 TI 8 and 16GB. compare to the 900-950$ 7900XTX with 24GB of VRAM and 4080 ish raster performance. I know the NVIDIA rock with DLSS 3 and DLSS is far better in looking and performance over FSR and the ray tracing is also better with NVIDIA. I hope that ADM can get the same NVIDIA performance and upscaling quality over NVIDIA for less $
What a time to be alive.
This is for vram bro
1 fps ? most of case it's 0 fps
Nvidia: We'll give you more VRAM and criple the bus speed and you'll be GRATEFUL!
I don't understand how Nvidia can keep making such awful value cards and stay in business, it shouldn't matter if theyre faster
+100$/+0FPS=Infinity scam :D
@@gro_skunk >stay in business
They make most of their profit from AI, not consumer gpus for video games.
@@mehck-gk9yn What are you talking about? half, HALF of the total income of nVidia comes from the damn consumer graphic cards. The other big segment (~38%) is data center which only a fraction is AI. At the current time AI is just an investment for nVidia not the core of its business.
@@IcaniCorronobut not all consumer graphics cards are bought for gaming. Theres a huge chunk of consumers who couldn't care less about games, like content creators, deep learning enthusiasts, crypto miners etc.
The low bandwith is killing this card. 8Gb or 16 Gb doesn't matter if there is no flowthrough! You can make a 32Gb card, but with those lanes it wouldn't make a notable difference.
Right, Example. Played MW2 with a 4070 Ti @ 1440p , Ultra & Extreme settings with dlss on and was getting hitching which im sure its the 1% lows and the low memory bandwidth & bus on the 4070 Ti
ruclips.net/video/MrMW750_d-Q/видео.html
Pay attention to the 1% lows mostly, As you will see the gpu is holding high fps so most people look at that alone and think "Beast of a gpu" but the 1% lows tell the other story and thats where i think they crippled the gpu along with the 12GB of vram. Even it was doing it @ 1080p, Max settings im like huh? Because ive seen the same settings on a 4090, No hitching at all and even a 4080 would prob do better with higher memory bandwidth and a 256 bus, And the hitch is so fast you barely can notice it in video but the fact it happens tells me 504GB on the memory bandwidth and 192 bit bus isnt enough @ ultra / extreme settings and if games like mw3 gets even more demanding your going to end up cutting settings down to balanced or so which i believe will happen as mw3 will be a tad bit more demanding then mw2
That said, Again you look at the AVG or normal frames and see they high and it looks good. I think one time it went from 205-195 or so on general but the 1% went lower then 60fps so you look at the normal frames and see you not even close to 60fps and thats what gets people
yeah, but he didn't do a good job choosing the right areas of the games to test e.g. other areas later in RE4 and TLOUP1 use more VRAM and there would be bigger difference
504GB/s 🗿
@@parker4447 Still the fact they gimping the memory bus and bandwidth on lower end cards is bad. 3090 to 4090 doesn’t have this problem but going from the 3080 to 4080 and 3070 ti to 4070 ti it’s been gimped lol
Not good
@@sadzonka Right especially when the 4080 has 716 and the 4090 has 1018gb or so.
504gb isn’t enough for the 4070 Ti. Your going to end up lowering settings a bit faster and experience bad 1% lows
4060ti should had full x16 lanes and 256bit
well, full AD106 Full X16 lanes, 128bit yeah ok i guess but give 16Gb/12Gb 21Gbps VRAM at least
and for price it at 329USD max then 4060ti is worth it
4060Ti 8Gb renamed it 4060 and price it at 279USD
4060 8Gb renamed it 4050Ti, and price it at 219USD
everyone will be happy
128 bit on 60 series is a stupid move
Even a 192 bit bus would have been fine. 12GB of VRAM with a 192 bit bus at 400$ would have been fine. Instead we got this mess.
@@SSJfraz "BuT BuT BuT, We CrAnKeD Up L2 CaChE iN 4060 SeRieS!!"
another excuse from ngreedia
@@SSJfraz We do have such a card, it's falsely labelled "4070" and priced like a 4080....
Every new videocard makes me like my 3080 more and more.
Ngreedia alternates between good and bad generations... it's like an unwritten rule.
@@Welly_FS1The even numbers series, are the generation of introducing new technologies. The odd numbers series, are the refined and complete versions, both in terms of the value and performance. Nvidia actually stated this, but obviously not many will pay attention.
same but 6700xt, 12gbs helps me avoid stutters in modern games
The RTX 3080 is still great, but it eats electricity. But I'm happy with it 🙂
@@advers790omg someone talking AMD again, when nobody cares
So basically pay $100 for Zero Performance improvement. Except for a couple of games..
It's literally the same card. Just that one is 16GB and the other is 8. How could you be this dense?
Future proofing
Future proofing
More VRAM doesn't make games faster but smoother.
As far as I can hear, this time around they don't reduce the spec on the lower memory one, usually they nerf the lower GB one, this time around they all same spec, just different memory. Hence, the fps differences doesn't show that much unless the game is needed way more than 8GB memory.
The main issue with this 4000 series isn't the just price/performance,it's that the introduction of the RTX 4070Ti which takes place right where the
RTX 4070 normally would be,thus making every card down the stack a lower end product with a higher number and price tag. Now,you can say names are just arbitrary,but they aren't if you price the products by their names and not their performance tiers and specs.
this in turn makes the RTX 4060 the RTX 4050,by specs and performance. the RTX 4060 we should've gotten costs 400$ and is the RTX 4060Ti,which in itself is
marketed as the RTX 4070 and goes for 600$. the 4070Ti is what should've been just the regular RTX 4070,and they could've never managed to get away with selling it for the absurd price of 800$,so first they tried calling it the "4080 12GB" but that didn't work out and they ended up changing it,but still fucking us over just the same.
Also,all cards have a crippling amounts of VRAM and bus width. Even the 4080 has been crippled to stay far away from the 4090 which in itself should've been called the 4080Ti since it's not using the full AD102 die to make room for the 4090Ti which will undoubtedly cost upwards of 2000$. But it's the "APEX" product so it makes sense it costs a gazillion-dollars right you guys??? YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT THE RTX 4080 ONLY COSTS 1200$! it's half as much as a 4090Ti!
I think you got it the wrong way around it would have been even worse if they kept the 4080 12gb because then the 4070 ti would have the performance of a 4070 for more money
This generation has been severely underwhelming, even from AMD. I genuinely wish I could just buy a console, plug in a mouse and keyboard, and turn off vsync. I currently have a 1060 3gb and there isn’t one card aside from a 6700xt that makes sense to buy right now. And I can see myself regretting buying a 2 year old 6700xt a year from now depending on what else is either released, or announced to be released in a future generation. Wish I could buy Nvidia but with the cutbacks and price raises, it’s just not worth it.
@@WatermelonFel0n yeah bro sit next 2 years on your pascal gpu xDD
Wrong. The current "4060/TI" IS the 4050. It's just been relabelled as 4060 and price bumped up. The current "4070" is the true 4060. but again, that has been relabelled as a "4070" and price bumped up to 4080 levels... Just DO NOT believe in this NVidia scam...
@@CersionX Who knows. They could've kept the 4070 the same. The 4070Ti as things stand is an abomination of a card since it's practically in the traditional spot of where 70 class GPUs are supposed to be (GTX 970=780Ti,GTX 1070=980TI,RTX 2070=GTX 1080Ti,RTX 3070=RTX 2080TI,RTX 4070Ti=RTX 3080Ti)
yet it costs 800$! a premium flagship price for a midrange product. I am absolutely astounished that GPU reviewers dont bring it up more.
I guess we know the reason why Nvidia was so quiet about this..
Yeah, because they make most of their profit from AI and don't give a shit about video games anymore.
not surprised at all by the results. It's a *50(TI?) class card named as a *60TI with a *70 class price tag, unless there is no other option then one would be better off getting an AMD card for the same price(or last gen Nvidia card if you can still find them).
They are not bad cards, just badly priced.
Dude you're so right. I just bought an RX6600 for $189 that came with Starfield so basically $119. NGreedia are dicks and I'm boycotting them for gaming until they lower prices. Unfortunately, the 4090 is best for productivity so I'm stuck with it as far as work goes.
6700 XT king
@@Sira_Kackavalj PORKCHOP SANDWICHES
@@mehck-gk9yn I'll take one
@@Sira_Kackavalj ruclips.net/video/uzfObC04dtc/видео.html
Thank you for including the summery graph at the end of each game.
summary*
NVIDIA: We thank you for donating $100 for no difference!!!!
@@lancevandolah3493 KYS is bullshit 16gb is too much they would add 10. if you wanna use 16gb you need better chip 4060ti doesnt have this you need something like 4080 +
@@lancevandolah3493 have you try to see comparison 3060 8gb vs 12gb?
@zxc13x the rtx 3060 12gb has a 192-bit bus width while all of the other cards have a 128-bit bus width so yeah if course it outperformed the 128-bit 3060
@@lancevandolah3493 yeah, true, that's part of inconsistency of nvidia
it does make a huge difference in games that utilize more than 8gb vram, but of course nobody is smart enough to realize this
I recently got this card. And it’s truly a beast!! It performs very well. However, This video proves exactly why every GPU enthusiast is so upset at Nvidia right now. They are not producing next-gen worthy features and are over-pricing for minor performance in return. Meanwhile, AMD is in the fast lane giving people a better value for performance. Hopefully, Nvidia will change and make their next cards better.
my condolences
@@max-mq3vc yeah, I paid the price, but I came from a 6650 XT and let me tell you it’s quite an upgrade. Hopefully the next generation of nvidia will be better and if it is, I’ll definitely be buying it.
amd is in the fast lane? amd means ray tracing off. at least for anything below a 6800xt. amd is stuck in 2018.
and they'll cope by telling you no nvidia card lower than an 80 class can raytrace either when in reality 70 and even 60 class cards can maintain ray traced 60fps at 1080p.
@@ImperialDiecast I agree with you even though it contradicts my first comment 3 weeks ago. I do love NVIDIA for their reliability. DLSS 3 is the ONLY reason I can live with the 4060ti for now. Ngl, I felt ripped off when I found out this card relies HEAVILY ON DLSS in order to produce Max. 1440p/ Med. 4k graphics. So I'll probably be upgrading to a 4070ti in the next 3-6 months when I can.
@@Apaullogaming i'd wait for at least one more generation. time will fly. you also have a big backlog of games, dont you? i think 800 bucks and above is a high price for raytraced 4k.
The MSFS Benchmark should have been done at a big custom airport. VRAM usage can more than double depending on where you are.
yeah use unrealistic scenario for most players rather then more aplicable one.... great idea lmao. you forgot that most people dont use custom assets at all and if they do, its the free ones not the more detailed demanding ones that cost as much as new game each...
@@SagittarA There are some custom airports in the base game like Paris CDG. I'm not talking about add-ons.
0-2 fps for 100 dollar 😂
It was never advertised to be faster just have more Vram which as you can see doesn't matter much in most games
Especially not a 1440p…
Even 10GB/12GB 4060ti would be much wiser.
It will matter at higher resolutions and future games. Newer games have been demanding a lot of vram and it will only keep increasing.
@@zephyre2847 That's why they release 800usd card with 12gb vram
25% more expensive for at best a few % faster. Nice one clownvidia
“but but muh frametime and vram”
You mean Ngreedia.
1-2 fps that too in few games! I would just get the 4070 at this point
@@cameronbosch1213nigidia
@@Shahzad1235716GB ram are good for 3D animation
This is for ignorant people, the 16gb vram of the 4060ti was made to be able to enter AI programs (stable diffusion) as a base since it is the minimum requirement to be able to use the program, it was not made for games
Thank you, but shhhh, we want gamers to trash it so it goes down in price, getting it for half the price.
For SDXL this is a great card , in stable difussion as soon as you use all the vram it cripples the performance, so this one out performs in speed even the 3080 for high resolutions from the vram difference alone.
The 8gb 4060ti would be pointless with a 3060 12gb around, the 8gb is for games
The Speed of the memory clock is actually more important than the Vram as we can see from this video.
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly.
To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
You’re better off buying a 6800XT for almost the same price of the 4060Ti 16GB.
Exactly. Heck a 6800 non XT is cheaper than 16GB 4060 Ti(and more around the 8GB one in price) and will outperform it as well.
@@stephenr2434 Yes, that's an exception.
Gamers to nvidia :- is this an out of season april fools joke?
Finally a REAL test!
Ty TG!!!
I was actually considering waiting for this 16GB version but ended up buying a RX 6800 instead because I couldnt wait. It has a similar price tag and turned out to be a good decision...
yes the rx 6000 series is great. I have an rx 6600 that runs at 52 degC under 100% load, extremely happy with performance too
I think the most high end graphics card I can get is rtx 4060 ti because my power supply have 6(+2) pin connector
@@aksGJOANUIFIFJiufjJU21 if you calculate electricity price then 4060 ti is much cheaper (at the end) than amd. Nvidia goes the right way.
@@alivesurvive471 I have rx 580
@@alivesurvive471 Im going look for amd graphic card originally but I doesnt have 2 pin connector with 8 pin or 6+2 pin or 6 pin and the power supply is 750 watts but I founded some model of rtx 3070 and 8 pin and 6 pins, but theres no dlss 3
I bet the extra 1-2 frames improvement is sneakily in the drivers.
It's simply because games do not have to load and swap textures when VRAM usage is over 7GB (some portion of VRAM is reserved for Windows and apps). 1-2 frames might be also within the measurement tolerance (something working in the background) as Plague Tale had 2 frames more on average on 8GB card. There is some propability of what you are saying is true, but 2 frames more is hardly a card seller :)
@@sanjyuu2298bro 16gb are capable for 4k
@@devilnevercry3737 no if you only have 128 bit bus
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly.
To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
@@BeniAndriansah ohhh
I'll get either a 4070 or amd equivalent. Was looking forward to 16gb but they screwed up
Those frame time graphs and 0.1% low are nice upgrade for €120😅
Please notice that he didn't even test the card properly.
To test the performance difference between 8 and 16 gigs of vram then you have to run games that would actually use more than 8 gigs of vram!
Just fixing your 0.1% for additional 100 bucks
What a stupid joke from Nvidiot's
Wow, colossal improvement !!!
What you expected? 1000 fps more?
@@angeld7849for a 100$ extra there should be more than just negligible difference lol
@@watzbeats9104 in a video, 16GB version give 20 fps more in games but I wont believe in any benchmark again
If the 8gb was a waste of sand, is the 16gb a waste of molecules?
3060ti 8gb 256 bit x16 lanes
4060ti 8gb/16gb 128 bit x8 lanes.
adding more cache is a good thing, but at least keep the rest of the specs the same or better.
6700 XT = price of 3060 non Ti and perfomance of 3070
@@EugeneA89 yes but consume a hell of a lot more you need big psu
@@Athalant8320 nah, the power is same as 3060ti
@@Rattlenumb6 no same power as a 3070 and also consume as much as the 3070 so more than 200watts while the 4060 consume 115watts
@@Athalant8320 its just 230w, just shy away from the high tier 3060ti with 220w
Useless Benchmark.
RE4Remake image quality 100%
8.12 GB / 7.06 GB
why not max it out? maybe cuz it may look the 16GB Card better?
ofc the 16 GB Card wont look better if your settings are set up for 8 GB ..LOL
by maxing out image quality it would show that 13 or more GB RAM are needed.
which result in massive fps drop. 2gb textures used instead of 8gb and calls it a comparison lol
Basically the 4060ti 16 gig, is 15 percent faster than a 3060ti , and will only help in a game requiring a lot of vram, and will eliminate the worry of running out of vram in the next 5 years. I own both cards and I have done a lot of tests , and the 4060ti is about 15 % faster overall than the 3060 Ti. And the 4060ti can over clock the gpu to +175 mhz on the core and 1000 on the vram and run stable also. My 3060ti is slower in all 30 games that I tested verses the 4060 Ti 16 gig.
15%? or 7% i've seen the benchmark 4060 ti didn't do well againts 3060 ti most cases 3060 ti won the game
I own both cards and I have done a lot of tests , and the 4060ti is about 15 % faster overall than the 3060 Ti. And the 4060ti can over clock the gpu to +175 mhz on the core and 1000 on the vram and run stable. @@MrTorch-p4z
The only guy with a 4060ti on the internet up and running and already tested benchmarked and posted a video.
The only guy??
@@EarthIsFlat456 Most video around 16gb are fake benchmark lol this is, legit the only benchmark video and another one is from MSI stream recording if that counts.
I lover my 4060ti. only poor ppl complain Apfff
@@RaifalM3n I'm poor I can't afford a 4060ti so I went for a 4090 instead.
@@RaifalM3n Lol only poor people buy 4060ti's
EVGA in a corner: *laughing*
Somehow, RTX 4060 Ti 16GB reminds me of the legendary card, Geforce MX 4000 128MB.
😂😂😂
Maybe in 20 years the 4060 Ti will also be popular for Retro-PCs but I highly doubt it. 😂
Who would by the 16 gb variant in the right mind.. for 500 or more go for 6700 6700xt 6750xt or even the 3070 4070 that makes a lot of sense.. then buying this..
This video is finally the perfect proof I had been waiting for to tell millions of people from a few months ago when all those major hardware channels made their videos who parroted their statement saying 8GB vram is too little, you need more vram or your performance will tank dramatically the moment your vram is exceeded.
Nah dude, just look at this benchmark as proof. What you need is more rasterization power. Better ray tracing cores. More memory bandwidth. All the good stuff that gives you more fps.
You dont magically destroy the performance of a card by halving its vram. If a 16GB AMD midrange card performs better than an 8GB nvidia midrange card, it's not because it has enough vram, but because it simply is better (and ray tracing is turned off).
Case in point, the 6800 vs the 3070ti. People said 8GB on the 3070ti is too little, it should have had 16GB instead, and because it doesnt, go buy the 6800 and keep ray tracing off. Nope.
You absolutely destroy your performance if vram usage exceeds vram cache which we have seen more and more of lately. Especially at higher resolutions. If he had run any of these games in 4k he would have seen a massive difference in some of these titles. 4k Witcher 3 with RTX absolutely can't run on an 8gb card. It crashes my game or blue screens my computer on a 3060ti. And yes it can run it at those settings it just runs into memory issues. With the 16gb of vram I would have a much better experience. Same for DeadSpace. Same for Hogwarts Legacy. Same for Resident Evil 4 Remake. Etc etc. Play testing a bunch of last gen titles at 1440p resolution does not instantly prove 8gb is enough. It's just copium lol.
@@lazarusfitness3892 so you think a 16gb 4060ti will have smooth sailing at 20 to 30 fps at hogwarts legacy in 4k with ray tracing while 8GB cards will BSOD?
@@ImperialDiecast can't you see that in Hogwarts Legacy DLSS and frame generation were off? it would get at least 55fps with FG alone. he turned it off because it would use more vram and make the 8gb card look bad..
9:12 This doesn't make any fking sense to me, if Hogwarts legacy is using 7GB on the 8g variant and 10GB on the 16g variant then why the fps is still the same ? why doesn't the vram limitations cause the fps drop, are u sure u running the same settings
I have the 16 gb version and using the new 12gb file texture pack for cyberpunk. running at 1080p and it's using 14gb vram. i can imagine how the 8gb version would perform.
the video has some kind of voodoo trickery going on. like you said. the 8gb version should perform way slower in games that surpasses the 8gb vram threshold.
the guy from classical technology channel did the same comparison in a video called Nvidia RTX 4060 Ti 16GB vs 8GB, Surprising. and the massive performance gained with 16gb is clearly shown.
Thx. I'll stay on 30s series. No need to pay over 1k for extra 5 FPS.
Not sure if it worth the money for everyone else but check the 1% and 0.1%, are way better in almost every game. That translates to smoother gameplay, less hiccups and stuttering.
No fucking way he proved, that 8Gb is completly enough for gaming!
He did 🤣
What about 4K resolution ?
@@angeld7849 at 4k it clearly isn't.
@@Onisak25 so, say to him is not enough for gaming xD
@@angeld7849 this GPU is to slow for 4K anyway unless you like to play below 60fps.
Interviever: What with rtx 4000 series.
Nvidia: i like money. Give me money.
To be fair, as an amd user I loved the 4090 best card ever but it was outa reach for 90% of users, 4080 was also good but again outa reach for 70% of people @£1200 msrp madness, £1500 aib`s. Maybe 4000 series will be a lesson to Nvidia this gen.
@@Nite-Lite-Gamers it will not be a lesson they just go further with AI.
The test is not very clear on the advantage of having more vrams since it only test at 1440p and without ray tracing.
Typically, you use more vram as you go higher in resolutions. The 4060 ti 16gb really only shine at that kind of condition where vram usage exceed 8gb. That usually doesn't occur at 1080p, it can occur for 1440p at some games which affect the 1% low. In 4k, you can find more games exceeding 8gb vrams. A several lack of vrams will not stop at affecting the 1% low but also affect the peak fps.
If you activate ray tracing, the vram demands will go up as well so in 1080p, it is possible to see lack of vram thus affect 1%.
In today's gaming scene, to run 1080p at max settings with all the fancy graphical enhancements, you need at least 12gb. 1440p will be 16gb while 4k will be good at 24gb.
Esta gpu no esta hecha para jugar en 4k, no tiene sentido probarla a esa resolución.
for example, I live in Russia, and here a new 3060ti costs more than a 4060ti, while on the secondary market the price for them is the same, but approximately 95% of all 3060ti come after mining, people don’t want to play the lottery, so they take the 4060ti because it newer and most likely not mined.
Wow! What an improvement! I’m definitely gonna buy the 16GB for just 2 more FPS! Definitely worth it
why should more ram has higher performance? stupid?
Look at rx 580 4gb vs rx 580 8 gb, they also had the same performance back in the day, but right now 8gb version is still kicking and 4gb is just dead
A 4060 ti will ONLY shine in games that use a LOT of vram so it can store large video texture packs easily in vram. If a game uses less than 8 gig of ram, the extra vram on any card does not matter at all. The test need to be done on a various games. Average and high demand vram games. You can set up a test to produce almost any outcome you like. But, Nvidia does not give the right amount of vram at the right price , AMD does. And in reality, if anyone that has researched and does agrees with that last statement, they have NO clue what they are talking about. To get 16 gig on a Nvidia card really cost too much vs AMD. I use Nvidia , so that is just the price I had to pay. I am not a fanboy of either company. Just stating FACTS. If AMD could get the driver issues fixed to make it a non issue, they would increase they annual profits by 5 to 10 times what it is now. AMD seems to try to be more gaming community friendly with what they offer for the price. Nvidia makes the more superior product (software drivers in particular) , so it is overpriced. Please, do your own research before you buy. Also, I have tested the dlss3 frame generation and it is really good. It definitely smooths out the image quality, and gives a really good gaming experience.
ОГО! Это что новый формат??
People say there is no difference, of course there is in games which demands more than 8GB VRAM, this gonna become even more common, see Ratchet & Clank benchmarks, the 16GB model even with 128 bits uses almost 12GB and been ahead about 34% in 1080p than the 8GB model and more than 40% in 1440p, is not that bad for using for a few years, 8GB other hand in a few years is gonna struggle much more mostly in 1% and 0.1% lows and textures load failing. The problem is the price of course, but the 8GB model in my opinion is worst than 16GB.
what do you expect when he used 2gb textures for resident evil instead of 8gb? Ratchet & Clank is using 13.5-14gb for me at 4k DLSS FG.
Classical Technology channel did a comparison showing that there is almost double fps VS the 8GB version.
these guys will drop the graphical settings just to make there point lol
The 16gb are obviously not going to improve FPS if the game doesn't use them.
They are mainly interesting for people who do 3d renders or editing where high VRAM is required. Fake outrage.
gamers think graphic cards are solely made for them.
Now test them using phgotography/video and AI apps, and see the difference. 16gb one is more than worth it if your life doesn't revolve around playing games.
only in the last of us was a realy difference in smoothness and 1% low fps.... mostly 8GB should be fine
Nothings diffrent untill you run high resolution
And graphics design
GPU specs didn't change, only amount of VRAM, we know that amount of RAM doesn't affect performance unless it not enough, so i'm not really surprised there is no difference in a games that are using less than 8GB of VRAM and if that difference exists, it's not much.
ofcz, more vram means nothing in some scenarios. those who always bark about vram can now be silence in hell..
@captain_morgan yes, if you mean setting everything always on ultra
@captain_morgan dude even 6gb is still fine in next gen games. pls stfu.
Exactly. People who are complaining don't know the purpose of high vram cards.
nvidia bro be like: I didn't increase the memory bandwidth, but increased the memory, now pay me more.
In RE 4 texture quality only high (2gb) preset there will be almost no difference as expected.
If we want to see the differences we need 4K benchmarks with DLSS with/without FG. That would be interesting
Because there is no difference between textures 2 GB and above
It wont do jack shit. Bandwidth can't keep up so overall performance remains same.
@@ЕгорВ-т2б yea, and people still cry about their 8gb gpu cant run ultra setting where in fact its just an arbitrary terms, at least capcom put texture description in the settings for people to understand it
You buy 4060ti for 4k?
@@Mako2401
No, you won’t buy it for 4K gaming. But if you want to have an picture of how well this card will age in the near future (Games will get more VRAM hungry), the 4K DLSS + FG bench can give you some answers
Just increasing the VRAM is not going to help here. That 128 Bit bus is the bottleneck. Whoever in Nvidia decided on putting it there should be fired.
The 16GB Version seems to have a better cooler and so it clocks a bit higher. This is the only explanation the 16 GB Version isn´t a bit slower in every case. According to Amdal's law, the 16 GB version has to be clocked a bit higher in order not to be slightly slower, as long it doesn't reach the V-Ram limit, which will never happen.
The 4060 and 4060ti cards are there to disappoint you so you get the 4070 which is a true 4000 series card but starts at $599. NGreedia at it
4060 ti 16gb vs 4070 i5 13600k
In other video the 16GB version give 10-20 fps more in games
i know those videos and all of them are fakes lol😂…
Its because people overclocking that instead stock clocking.
@@korosensei3590why?
@@AntiGrieferGamesoooh I see
From what I gather, it's not worth getting the Ti version with 12-16GB of VRAM unless you're running games at 1440p-4K with really high to ultra settings and rtx on. If you're on 1080p and running high settings (not ultra) you are golden. That's where I am. I don't care for 4k and I don't have a 1440p monitor. I prefer more frames over higher resolution. I think I'll get the 8gb version and let it ride until my machine is obsolete.
Low-End GPUs will never need 16GB of vRAM for at least like 7 years more
In The Last of Us Part I, when you set the graphics settings with an expected VRAM usage of 9.3GB, the 16GB card pulled ahead.
In Resident Evil 4, when you set the graphics settings with an expected 8.12GB VRAM usage (just barely over the capacity of the 8GB card), it made no difference.
So the question when gaming today is: Do you specifically play the literally three or so games that still have this issue a week after launch, and do you need to bump those settings where the VRAM usage is *significantly* more than 8GB?? (My opinion: Please just lower the settings, don't spend an extra $100...)
The question for long term is, will games start ramping up VRAM usage dramatically in the coming years, to where it is hard to set settings with low enough VRAM usage without making the game look bad? Related: Will companies be able to do that when most people own a card with 8GB or less VRAM? (Steam Hardware Survey says ~14.2% of Steam users have 12GB or more VRAM. A full 80% of Steam users have 8GB or less VRAM. The most common VRAM amounts are 8GB (27.53% of users) and 6GB (21.06% of users).)
I hope game makers will continue to make their games comfortably and enjoyably playable on 8GB or even 6GB of VRAM, especially with NVidia not providing more than that in most of this gen... Who is going to play a game that stutters below 12 or 16GB VRAM? Only ~15% of gamers???
"pulled ahead" by like 2 fps lol. vram is overrated when it comes to fps. i think the biggest benefits of having enough vram is that you will have better frametime and less occasional stutters which you cant see in this gameplay video that only compares fps. but this idea that if you run out of vram, your fps dramatically decreases has been proven false.
@@ImperialDiecast I mostly am looking at how smooth the frametime graph is (less stutters ... probably makes more difference in actual play, with quick pans for aiming, than in the cutscene shown in the video) and how the 1% and 0.1% lows pulled ahead by ~10-12FPS, and ~16fps, respectively.
It makes a difference, but so does reducing settings a bit so VRAM use isn't overflowing capacity. And so does not playing The Last of Us or like two or three other games right now that have this issue. (Or avoiding 4K resolutions, etc.) Will realistically be more of an issue in time, but how soon I have no idea. Hopefully not very soon.
wtf? ... what is the essence of the comparison if the settings are not maximum and reduced for 8 GB of video memory? (see 7:16 re 4 texture quality - 2GB is selected in settings instead of 8 Gb)
The 8GB card does alright tbh. Even in the memory intensive games which have clearly been optimised. So 8GB isn't dead or dead on arrival. Who knew?
Yes mom, I'm spending 100 USD for 1 FPS.
То самое чувство когда 8гб стоит 20к
То самое чувство когда встретил русский коммент среди английских. Как будто иглу в стоге сена нашел
RTX4060 ti 16gb tem melhores LOW 1% e FRAMETIME quando se usa mais de 8gb VRAM. Isso era de se esperar!
Infelizmente o preço é absurdo!
I love these kids crying about too low VRAM seeing how wrong they were. XD
Kinda the same thing with the 4GB and 8GB RX 480..... the only reason to buy the card w/ more VRAM is for future games. This benchmark should be revisited in a year, then a year after that.
This should also be tested at 3440x1440. The 16GB version will matter more to people who run multiple monitors.
Now this is the right way to test this card properly. Thank you my guy
i mean do you people know about anything else but games ? gpus are not just for games and extra vram for games ofc wont do much difference as 99% of the games dont need as much vram as most gpus have these days
Lamentable, acabo de comprar mi 4060 ti de 8gb para jugar en 1080p por mi monitor, ya que no podía cambiar a Amd porque mi fuente no me lo permite, sabía que no valía la pena esperar a la de 16gb.
The 4060 and 4060 Ti are an absolute fucking disgrace. They are awfully slow for modern 60 class GPUs. The 4060 Ti even gets outperformed by the 3060 Ti in some games, which is just assaulting. 16 GB of VRAM is completely overkill for a GPU with these crappy specs. To give you an idea of how bad these GPUs are, remember when the 3060 Ti came out for $399 and outperformed the $699 2080 Super in most cases? Now the 4060 Ti comes out and doesn't even match the previous gen 70 class GPU and even gets outperformed by the 3060 Ti in a lot of cases. Nvidia is giving their entry level and mid range GPUs the bare minimum amount of hardware, which is why they are hardly faster than their previous gen counterparts in raw performance. They are using software technologies such as DLSS and Frame Gen as the main selling points of their GPUs, which is a huge problem. We need to put a stop to this. Mid range GPUs nowadays are nothing but a massive scam.
СПАСИБО ЗА ПРОДЕЛАННУЮ ЧЕСТНУЮ РАБОТУ!
I guess Nvidia is trying to push the propaganda that 8GB of VRAM is enough. 🤦🏾♂
We all know it's issue is 128 but memory bus , bandwidth is so shitty it can't utilize more than 8 gb , 16 gb vram is wasted on 128 bit bus .
But on 256 bit bus , 16 gb vram will come in handy ,
Rtx4070 with 16 gb would post 15% better performance. But on rtx4060 ti , it's wasted.
What’s funny is that the 4060 Ti 16gb cost as much as an rx 6800 xt.
They should of never released the 8gb 4060 ti and just released 16gb
Right
This is crazy, even the vram usage different 2gb, the fps difference still less than 5 fps
This card 4060 ti 16g is not for games - Blender, 3d Da Vinci , Adobe Premiere , Stable diffusion and other Ai . just wait for new Ai drivers the you see the power of this architecture. Do a test with stable diffusion image generation or AI video?
generally speaking, the games that need more vram work very well and even way smoother than the 8gb version. watch again the video and see resident evil when he only used 2gb texture pack instead of 8gb just to make the point that there is no difference lol. the whole video methodology is flawed. SD runs great on my 16gb version as well.
Where are all the tech guys yelling about the vram problem when the benchmarks come out?
The difference between these two graphics cards is 2K is determined
where are the people who said that you need more VRAM to have better performance? now how are they going to defend what AMD said about more VRAM in games and its performance. The technology to have more performance is already there but they refuse to use it because they say they are "fake frames", please!
It's expected
Naturally, there is no difference between them
Because they are the same specifications and the only difference is the V-RAM
You may find some differences on the 4K
But the card is not directed at that accuracy in the first place
So don't waste your money on it
I think it's just the reviewers
who are going to buy it
Thank you for wasting your money to show us the difference!
I think they don't buy them, they lend them.😅
I fear no man but that thing (points at rtx 4060ti 16gb) it scares me.
Imagine releasing The Last of Us, a game that looked so beautiful and was so immersive on that super old Playstation hardware, yet not even being able to make it run at 60 fps on the latest generation of graphics cards. It's really mindblowing.
It's called incompetence. Remember that the studio that make this port is the same of Batman Arkham Knight.
thats becaus tlou was graphically completely redone from scratch. you cant play the old version on pc
the games is remastered, cant compare it with old version on PS and it's not even optimized, pls stop being ignorant
In this thread, people totally ignoring 1% lows like they don't exist.
People moan about 8gb now they get 16 just to see that it doesn’t matter 😂
Truly want to know what the hell was going through nvidias mind. Did they not use their own cards to see how dumb their line up and pricing is?
@testinggames, hey there, would.you be willing to do a pcie generational benchmark for this card? If you haven't already? I'd be interested to see if that x8 connection makes it useless for older systems
That 1 or 2 fps difference SOLD ME, WOW 🙄
Nvidia=Clown
Hardware unboxed saying 3070 is dead cause 8GB VRAM = Hyperclown
came here just cause i bought a 4070 recently. was contemplating a 4060ti 8gb with a 4070
serious question...
i need one for my DAZ studio...
will it worth it more a 4060ti or a 4060 ?
considering the most important in DAZ is the CUDA cores and the ram...
(and no, i can't afford 4070 or higher... GC are already overpriced in my country (france))
People, if the game you are playing doesnt require more than 8GB, the 16GB won't give you any more frames. FPS is more about CUDA and bus size. If Nvidia had given the 16GB a wider bus, then they would be shooting the 4070 card(s) in the foot. Now pump it up to 4K then you will more likely see the 8GB choke vs 16GB. Lastly, gamers need to stop thinking GPUs are only made for them, they are also made for productivity. 3D animators plus LLM generators will gladly tell you how much more performance they get out of 16GB, not faster due to CUDA & bus but produce larger files.
Reading the comments, it's really a shame not many knows GPUs aren't only for gaming.
Anyway thanks for the video, now I knew for sure that 16GB draw slightly more power than 8GB, please continue your great job 👍
As someone with an 8GB version, with no reason to reject the confirmation bias this provides:
Is there anything to be said for the 16GB version maybe being better for the more demanding games that are yet to be made?
There are other uses for gpu other than gaming. All the outrage you see for the 4060ti 16gb usually come from people who see its uselessness in game fps. For AI/machine learning, this is a pretty good gpu specifically because of the vram if you don't wanna get a 4080 for as much vram.
since you have the 8gb version. try the new cyberpunk ultra texture pack. it's a 12gb file on nexusmod. i have the 16gb version and it's using 14gb vram.
also, ratchet and clank needs more than 8gb vram maxedout. uses around 13.5gb vram at 4k
@@zhevulture also, 2 fans version with 2.5slots and no 12 pin and just 165W.
stable diffusion running great. 15gb vram used.
thankfully for nvidia they didn't give the rtx 3060ti 12gb 256bit vram and upgrade dlss 3 otherwise the rtx 4060/4060ti wouldn't sell 😂
VRAM zealots are like: WTF ...
exactly
128bit bus width kill this card
You received: 1~4 more fps
Nvidia received: 100 dollars
Average nvidia 🗿🗿
Why in RE4 is set texture quality High(2GB) on 16 GB VRAM ?!?
Because higher looks exactly the same people have no idea how this works. 2gb is enough to load textures around you in good quality 3gb is probably 100% enough and more is overkill. Pre-loading more textures may reduce stuttering and pop in but i dont think that SSD would cause pop in or stuttering related to assets loading maybe if you have game on HDD.
if i have money and want to build new PC.
i will buy that 16gb.
for RE 4 , have you chose to use max graphic memory?
Lol Robbery.😂 Rtx 4060 ti 16gb should be 350. Then again, I don't think anyone should be paying more than 250 for a 1080p card.