RTX 3060 12GB or RTX 4060 8GB? Or AMD Equivalent?

[Wabbajack]

I am AMD user and looking for a new gpu, the reason I switched from AMD to NVIDIA is because the driver incompatibility. Like currently I'm using RX580 (since late 2018) and for the last 3 months my driver were often got removed by Windows, despite my efforts to fix the problem by using DDU, turning off windows update, editing registry, company policies, and even using wushowhide, like I already tried everything. I am concerned that if I get AMD GPU to replace my old RX580, the problem with driver persist.

Now I am weighing between 3060 or 4060 because I read on online articles and from YouTube that 4060 is not worth it for the current price/performance compared to 3060. Or should I get another AMD? So I humbly ask your enlightenment for this matter.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

4060 is a better option than the 3060. It's around 15-20% more powerful compared to 3060.

8 GB VRAM is sufficient for 1080p high-settings gaming. Which these GPUs are aimed at.

You will probably NEVER use the extra VRAM of 3060 unless you play some specific game at Max settings with Ultra texture, which contribute very little to the actual visual quality anyway. But you will be definitely using the extra 15-20% power of 4060 everyday, especially in these low-end GPUs.

[hawkeye]

Buy the best you can afford. Your cpu isn't the greatest. It's likely to be a bottleneck on many games. If you get a good gpu now you won't have to upgrade again if you go to a better cpu.

You also need to assess your power supply and monitor connector type against the specs of any intended purchase.

[Χάρης]

AMD Equivalent. The 3060 may have more vram but it is slower than the 4060, plus no DLSS 3. The 4060 is too slow for its price, plus has only a little vram.

[r.linder]

8GB is fine unless you're chasing max settings in every game, most don't need more than 8, so there's no shame in buying an 8GB card like a 3060 8GB, 4060, 6600, 7600, 3060 Ti, 3070 Ti, etc.

By time all games coming out need more than 8, basically every GPU out right now will be too weak to get good framerates regardless.

[C1REX]

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

8GB is fine unless you're chasing max settings in every game, most don't need more than 8, so there's no shame in buying an 8GB card like a 3060 8GB, 4060, 6600, 7600, 3060 Ti, 3070 Ti, etc.

By time all games coming out need more than 8, basically every GPU out right now will be too weak to get good framerates regardless.

That’s a very strong opinion.
I personally can’t recommend a 8GB GPU for people who want to use the card for the next 4 or 6 years.
Having a brand new, expensive PC that can’t run console games just doesn’t feel right.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por C1REX:

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

8GB is fine unless you're chasing max settings in every game, most don't need more than 8, so there's no shame in buying an 8GB card like a 3060 8GB, 4060, 6600, 7600, 3060 Ti, 3070 Ti, etc.

By time all games coming out need more than 8, basically every GPU out right now will be too weak to get good framerates regardless.

That’s a very strong opinion.
I personally can’t recommend a 8GB GPU for people who want to use the card for the next 4 or 6 years.
Having a brand new, expensive PC that can’t run console games just doesn’t feel right.

Wouldn't even matter if you picked a 10+GB GPU like the 6700-XT because it's only marginally faster than the 4060, it's effectively just another low end GPU.
There is no long-term value in any lower end GPU when the core won't be keeping up, VRAM capacity won't save it.

And there are other factors at play;
1. RTX 4060 only draws around 115W and doesn't get very hot, making it very viable for systems with older/weaker power supplies, as well as smaller form factor systems where heat can be more of an issue to resolve.
Compared to the RTX 3060, that's around a 30% reduction in power consumption with a 15~20% increase in performance.

2. Compared to the 6700-XT which performs around 10% faster in rasterisation performance, the 4060 is similarly faster in raytracing performance and carries full support for DLSS 3, and because NVIDIA already had Reflex, DLSS frame generation is better than the AMD equivalent, and thanks to AMD, NVIDIA GPUs can use either DLSS or FSR at the user's leisure, whereas you're stuck with FSR, or nothing if FSR isn't an option but DLSS is in another game. Both are common now.


If you want a GPU that'll actually last 5+ years and still perform very well, you're basically looking at a 7900-XT, XTX, 4080, and 4090. Even the 4070 and 7800-XT are not going to hold up that well in 5 years from now, that's 3080 level performance which I'm quite familiar with, because I use one. The industry doesn't want you to keep your GPU for as long as possible, they want you to upgrade, because it's a business. The farther they push things forward into higher graphics quality, the greater of an issue that's going to become for people on the low end who can't afford to pay $500+ for a GPU every few years, and it'll happen regardless of how much VRAM is supplied. But forced obsolescence is obviously okay with gamers because muh graficks.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por smallcat:

If a game needed more than 8GB VRAM at 1080p , no mid range card could deliver playable FPS even with 8+GB VRAM . Faster card->increased need of VRAM-> playable FPS . So , 8GB is very good for 1080p .

Literally, a lot of these cards can't actually pull very high framerates with settings that use that much VRAM, the 7600-XT and 4060 Ti 16GB can't do it. There was no reason to give them that much, NVIDIA did it in part because they panicked and started making cards with double the VRAM because it was more cost effective than changing everything with the 4060 Ti in response to AMD, and AMD did the same with the 7600-XT to combat the 4060 Ti.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por smallcat:

AMD are expected to roll out 400-500 buck cards which can beat NVidia top cards .

Who would believe such a vague and outlandish statement? They can't even beat NVIDIA with double that, and from last generation to this generation in that price range has only been 10~15% at best.

[C1REX]

Here are some recent benchmarks from Hardware Unboxed. The 3060 12GB can be faster or can make some games look better than the 4060 8GB. Some games stutter when low on VRAM, while others don’t load high-quality textures to keep up. I recommend keeping an eye on 1% lows.

https://youtu.be/Lcb1dpe2IhE?si=4Nw1AHckR655X4-L

Everybody will make their own decision, but recommending an 8GB GPU today to play new AAA games even at 1080p is too risky, in my opinion. Textures alone make as much of a difference as other settings combined, while they don’t require any computing power - just memory. Reducing texture quality is the worst compromise to make.

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por C1REX:

Here are some recent benchmarks from Hardware Unboxed. The 3060 12GB can be faster or can make some games look better than the 4060 8GB. Some games stutter when low on VRAM, while others don’t load high-quality textures to keep up. I recommend keeping an eye on 1% lows.

https://youtu.be/Lcb1dpe2IhE?si=4Nw1AHckR655X4-L

Everybody will make their own decision, but recommending an 8GB GPU today to play new AAA games even at 1080p is too risky, in my opinion. Textures alone make as much of a difference as other settings combined, while they don’t require any computing power - just memory. Reducing texture quality is the worst compromise to make.

Low end 40 series has been known to suffer from memory bandwidth problems, it's what dragged the 4060 Ti down. That has nothing to do with the VRAM capacity, NVIDIA nerfed how the memory actually performs and tried to make up for it with cache.

The low end is full of compromise and both AMD and NVIDIA are intentionally holding it down.

[C1REX]

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

That has nothing to do with the VRAM capacity, NVIDIA nerfed how the memory actually performs and tried to make up for it with cache.

Then how can you explain a massive difference in performance in some games at 1080p between 4060Ti 8GB and 4060Ti 16GB when the only difference is memory capacity and literally nothing else?

[󠀡󠀡]

bad exp with amd GPU's drivers for the most part good luck.....

[r.linder]

Escrito originalmente por C1REX:

Escrito originalmente por r.linder:

That has nothing to do with the VRAM capacity, NVIDIA nerfed how the memory actually performs and tried to make up for it with cache.

Then how can you explain a massive difference in performance in some games at 1080p between 4060Ti 8GB and 4060Ti 16GB when the only difference is memory capacity and literally nothing else?

It only makes a difference when you run out of memory since the system will compensate by using DDR as VRAM which is much slower than GDDR

You can easily avoid that just by not cranking every little setting and trying to run 8K textures on everything

[C1REX]

Escrito originalmente por smallcat:

Where is 1080p insufficiency !? They used 3 res -1080p , 1440p and 4K . i speak about 1080p

There's a big difference in performance between the 4060Ti 8GB and 16GB at 1080p in "The Last of Us," and horrible textures in "Halo Infinite" even at 1080p. Some other games like "Resident Evil" or "Forspoken" (not shown in this video) do the same and load worse textures to avoid stutters. There's up to a 10% difference in 1% lows in other games, suggesting more stutters with less VRAM. 1% lows are more important to many people than the average number.

The massive difference is in "Plague Tale: Requiem" with RT on. The game runs at 60FPS with 16GB but at 40 with horrible stutters on 8GB - drops to 18fps.

Fun fact: 1440p with DLSS quality is usually easier to run than native 1080p but needs a little bit more VRAM. Ray Tracing and frame generation also need more VRAM. Some mods need VRAM as well. Playing for longer than 10 minutes can consume more VRAM, so not every benchmark will show the problem.

All this is today. What about future games? Devs barely stopped making cross-gen games on PS4 with 8GB VRAM. If you think 8GB is enough, then it's absolutely fine. It's fine for most people and most games.

The question is: Is 8GB a good recommendation for people who want to play popular new games for the next 4-6 years?

[r.linder]

A lot of the people buying the x60 tier aren't that interested in maximising their settings for multiple years, and that isn't even all that reasonable to expect of a lower end tier. It's low end for a reason.

If the card doesn't meet the user's needs then they shouldn't buy it, doesn't mean the card's bad just because it doesn't have all the VRAM.