if only it had 12gigs from the jump the RTX 4060ti 16gigs but less cores then the RTX 4070 at 16gigs RTX 4080 20gigs and RTX 4090 28gigs but yeah Nvidia is VRAM stingy and this is why i didn't bother and bought a RTX 2060 used, and i believe i made the better choice. 1.)Cyberpunk 2077 High settings RTX 4060=90fps/64 RTX 2060S 8g=72fps/50 RTX 2060 6g=71fps/44 2.)RD2 ultra set RTX 4060=111fps /81 RTX 2060S 8g=87fps/64 RTX 2060 6g=92fps/ 57fps(xbox one settings) i believe it can handle ultra tho even with a warning. 3.)FH5 Ultra set RTX 4060=119 fps/81 RTX 2060S 8g=78fps/59 RTX 2060 6g=82fps/68 4.)COD mw2 ultra set RTX 4060=108fps/47 RTX 2060S 8g=78fps/35 RTX 2060 6g=79fps/43

in all seriousness though if we're going for apples to apples here then this should be a 2060 non super in the video.

The 3060ti is the successor to the 2060 Super. The 4060 is really a 4050 in reality.

@@dukejukem8843 Just take 10 fps off and you get 2060 non super.

Nvidia has gotten greedy and lazy. What do you expect?

Wait till more games use unreal engine 5 and more modern engines, then the difference will be greater. Remnant 2 a ue5 game is bascially unplayable on the 2060 while the 4060 can manage it.

i think the selling points on the 4060 is also the technology aswell

@@gejamugamlatsoomanam7716 Remnant is optimized like garbage

Good idea for a follow up video

Yeah I really need to revisit that card :)

​@@RandomGaminginHDyes you do I got a 3060 and a 12400f with 16 gigs of ram recently and compared to my old i7-4790 and gtx 1650 it's a decent upgrade I'd say

I went from a 2060 Super to a 3060 12GB. The newer card is marginally faster but not mind blowing and despite the extra VRAM, the 3060 has a narrower memory bus, bloody NVIDIA. The 4060 has been almost universally derided.

we need to see a 2060 vs 3060 vs 4060 comparison! @@RandomGaminginHD

@@RandomGaminginHDyea you should o 3060 vs 3060ti vs 4060 or something like that

Those two generational uplifts are not comparabale. Back then it was normal to see huge uplifts between generations in all kinds of electronics.

@@Waldherz Except that did not happen with the GTX 560 at all, infact many 560s were slower than the better 460s because they were just a huge rebranding exercise with woeful core clock increases. I have multiple examples of both; somehow I got a bit obsessed with testing that era of GPUs for a while. What made it all the more silly was that the GTX 460 v2 was way faster than the original 460 anyway; it had a narrower memory bus but its much higher core clock more than made up the difference, while providing huge oc headroom (running 1GHz+ core on v2s was easy, even with the stock fan, whereas most 560s were only about 800MHz core, vs. a typical 867MHz stock for a 460 v2). Two v2s in SLI easily beat a GTX 580 (back when SLI still worked really well), sans the VRAM difference, and the v2s were cheap, selling for 115 UKP new for a significant duration. The 560 Ti was a far more tangible performance bump over the 460 but cost quite a lot more. The other nice thing about the 460 was that one could buy 2GB VRAM versions, though they're weren't binned quite so well, so the oc headroom was lower. It's a pity there were no 2GB V2s or doubled-VRAM 560 Tis.

I dont see why it shouldnt be normal to expect huge uplifts, in the 2000s we went from single core to hexa cores in a few years @@Waldherz I personally dont pay for "features" shoved in and a premium for said features, imo only upgrade gpu when its a minimum 2x fps increase for the same price, or if you actually need the power

rtx4060 it's dissappointing, no discussion about, but to be 100% fair, gtx460 get a refresh with the gtx560 (and 560ti too) before the gtx660

⁠@@Tonyx.yt.yes and of course the 2060 super also has another full generation inbetween with the 3060 (and the 3060ti) so it’s exactly the same thing when it comes to generation numbers. Now if you look at the chips you’ll see that Nvidia is a cheapass scammer company, they downgraded every cards chip quality and power! A 60 would’ve been a 50 in the last generation, a 80 would’ve been a 70 and so on. It’s really a disgrace for Nvidia and the only card I’d consider getting from the technical aspect is the 4090 (don’t look at the ridiculous price) but there I’m also mad that they won’t use the potential of the chip to it’s fullest (to scam more people with the power upgrade from the next 5090 series I guess..) and release a 4090ti or a titan card. It’s ridiculous to waste that chips power behind an artificial barrier. Unfortunately AMD doesn’t build competition cards anymore so the 4090 is the only high end option..

well tbh the 2060 super was also quiet a bit more expensive no?

its a pretty good improvement, around 40% faster on average in native performance, has DLSS 3 which can give a huge performance bump, uses 35% less power and costs 35% less when inflation is taken into account and and 25% less in straight numbers. you are getting the performance of a 2080s, for 25% less than a 2060s for 45% of the power draw of the 2080s.

@@_qwe_fk_1700 that’s a good point

why, newer 128-bit versus old 256-bit?

@@oxfordsparky and then the 6700XT comes and stomp it into the ground for the same price... the 20 series was expensive for being new tech, the 40 series has no excuse

Also save on power bills, if you do enough gaming or video editing.

yep, same fast 2080 wanted min. 550W PSU, vs 4060(4050) only 300W ...... launch prices were 700 USD vs 300 USD

Oh for sure. Especially for 1080p gaming

Same using 1440p with quality dlss its still very much a good GPU my brother has a 3060ti and my 2080s still keeps up pretty well with his pc 🤘

or 2 or 3 or 4

yeah, 4060 is decent for people using a 1060 still, but people wit hRTX gpu should be able to hold at least one extra generation.

Close in older games. Newer games the RX smokes the 1080 by up to 20%.

The rx 6600 xt trades blows with the gtx 1080 ti. It definitely beats the gtx 1080.

Its because He has Enabled the Advance Graphics. Those Settings are very CPU intensive.

@@zalankhan5743 i know, just pointing it out since its a gpu comparison

and even then it’s kinda debatable depending on your setup

@@crimson-foxtwitch2581 yeah many factors , upgrading with the same small psu, your budget etc

I understand the sentiment, but it's not exactly the benefit that we were expecting. The upper-tier hardware from nvidia shows that there is tons of progress being made, and yet the new 60-spec cards are falling way behind the expected generational improvements, which means that they are simply making money off of name and almost nothing else. These 4060s are all going to age like milk, and the people who didn't know better than to not buy a 4060 will be wondering why their GPUs didn't last the same way the 1060/2060/3060 did as time passes.

@@jo54763 Not a fan of nvidia myself, not trying to defend it, but lets be honest - radeon 7600 is equally funny with its "generational" performance "increase". At least its cheaper. So it is not only nvidia.

@@giedmich What are you comparing the RX 7600 to? You can do an IPC compare to the RX 6600 XT, The RT improvements are higher than what Nvidia is getting, per-generation.

@giedmich Actually, I have the same complaint about the 7600 and the leaked specs for AMD's midrange cards. It just happens to be that this video is a video about a 2060 and a 4060 so... I didn't really think to mention it.

​@justinok5476 that's because the 60 super is a barely cut down 2070 and the 4060 would normally be the 50 or 50ti class card

Yeah I have a feeling it’ll be really popular in prebuilts so the market will be flooded in a few years

It is on a proper pcie5 motherboard. Hes bottlenecking the 4060.

@@cgwworldministries83What bottleneck?

@@cgwworldministries83 headass bozo

@@cgwworldministries83 the 4060 is a PCIe4 card. Therefore PCIe5 won't help at all. And as seen looking at the PCIe3 numbers, the PCIe interface is not a problem at all...

It's very good card for 1080p.

Will perform slightly worse except the rare occasions where 6GB isn't enough for 1080p.

@@beri4138 No if you look at benchmarks it's a bit faster than the regular 2060 since it's more like a 2060 super with slower vram.

Well yeah I said it's slower than a 2060 super...@@olnnn

That's because it's really a RTX 4050 😉

Wrong. Generation wise, it would have been the GTX 770 versus the 1070. Or if you want to start with the GTX 670, compare it with the GTX 970, skipping a generation. This comparison was off too. It should have been the RTX 2060(KO, same as original 2060 but cheaper launch MSRP of $300 vs $350) versus RTX 4060($300) or the 2060 Super ($400 MSRP) versus RTX 4060 Ti(well, $400 for the 8GB model is more reasonable versus the $500 16GB model which is a complete waste of money for gaming purposes. Productivity and AI, not so much).

@@jtenorj The 1660Ti was also closer with a MSRP of $280. Like you said though it's far more comparable to the plain RTX 2060, than it is to the RTX 2060 Super. Not just in naming, but also on it's initial price. The 2060 Super was basically a substitute for a 2060Ti variant, that generation. When it's up against the RTX 2060 (and not the rare, KO), then it doesn't look half as bad as people think. The 4060 has around 40% more performance, for around 15% less initial cost (MSRP of $300 vs $350), while drawing almost a third less power, than the 2060. Plus, it has PCIe 4.0 support, DLSS 3.0 support and better RT performance. Honestly that really isn't too bad in that time span.

Sorry, I see he said for people with older systems.

I have an older small form factor pc that one of those would be perfect for.

It's on the way, but it will be named a 4050 so they can charge you $250

Not been talked about? There are loads of articles and videos when it happened. Basically, the last 512mb of cache is faulty 980, so the memory is like 1/5th the speed of the rest. It's still usable, but until nvidia fixed drivers, it used to hitch when it filled over 3.5gb, which was fairly rare for games then, unless you were doing 1440 or 4k

Yeah I think so too :)

​@@RandomGaminginHDcould you compare it to the rtx 3060 aswell?

​@williamdodge7320 2060 super is around 10% slower then the 3060 12gb

The 8 gb of vram is killing it

8gb vram will not age that well, you must be OK with lower settings to say it aged well

yeah it is, i got a 4060 and love it

DLSS 3 is not supported in most games lmfao. Plus, DLSS3 has it’s own issues

The game will either be older than the GPU, current to the GPU, or newer than the GPU. The older ones will of course not support a new DLSS, but the age will make the GPU likely able to run the game anyways. Current gen, sure - not every game will support Nvidia's features. New games..it's surprising how many DO support DLSS 3. I was a skeptic of DLSS and bought a 4090 for my C2 (4k 120Hz scren) and i am suprised how many titles actually benefit from DLSS 3. Frame gen is indecipherable from magic to me, and i'm a CS Major student. Cyberpunk is leading the charge in tech demo, but games like MSFS and Spiderman really utilize the tech well for example.

@@elite_pencil yes, as long as you stay with newer AAA and AA games DLSS will do wonders. Sadly the same can not be said about smaller games...

DLSS 3 requires a lot of additional VRAM, and 8 GB is already a problem without that extra load (and if you want to use raytracing that uses even more vram as well). I think you'd be disappointed, it'll age very poorly on that front imo

I think in most of the games tested, the 4060 was approximately 25% faster(or you could say the 2060S was 20% slower) with outliers being(if I recall correctly) Forza Horizon 5(4060 was close to 50% faster making the 2060S about 33% slower) and GTA 5(basically a tie. Some folks suggest it was due to a CPU bottleneck, but I doubt Steve's i5 12400f is any kind of bottleneck to either of these lower end GPUs). Still, the comparison should have either been an RTX 2060($300 for the KO model which performed identically to the original) versus the RTX 4060(also $300) or the 2060 Super($400) versus the RTX 4060 Ti 8GB(also $400).

same 2060 super its still brutal card and its like 10 15 % perfrom difference with 4060... no point upgrading for me... may be will wait for 5000s series

wait until the 5000 series which is what I'm doing!

​@@stefanpanayotov3857 i had a 2060 super. Just died this afternoon. 4060 now is cheaper than a 2060 super, less power draw, runs cooler and a slight increase in performance. Was going to get a 4070 but that would also mean a new psu. Ill save the money and upgrade my cpu instead. Shame really the 2060 super was excellent.

Yeah I have an MSI Trident 3 with a 350w power supply and I was thinking about upgrading my 2060 Super with the 4060. My options are limited bc of the small form factor and the power supply. Definitely want to see 1440p performance before I take the plunge.

Saving about 40W that's about 1KWh per 24 hrs, so assuming a max of half your life maxing the card, half a KWh/day, 17p day, or 60 quid a year. For anyone maxing the card for less than 5 hrs per day may not actually save money!

Yeah still holds up ok apart from a few frames here and there

I upgraded from mine recently and it was still doing quite well on 1440p. Picked up a used 3080ti for $380 and it has absolutely blown me away. Buying used is the way to go nowadays

Can't GTA 5 run clear up to like 180+ FPS at which point the physics start to bug out or something?

Yeah :)

awesome thanks man your really one of the best youtubers @@RandomGaminginHD

What a bro.

Nvidia doesn't care. They're selling out $40k H100s and about to be selling $70k+ GH200s. Their model for years now has been screw the peasants and rake in megacash in whatever bubble is currently trending. Crypto is out, A.I. is in. But yes it's nice to see the overall contempt for their practices among the PC community and the lackluster results of the 4000 series.

AI isn't a bubble@@pottingsoil723