• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

NVIDIA 4000 Series

  • GeForce RTX 4060: MSRP $299/€329
  • GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8GB: MSRP $399/€439
  • GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB: MSRP $499/€549

£329 = lots of competition with 12Gb 3060 cards, this old stock is going to be discounted

£439 = about £80 more expensive than 3060Ti cards

£550 = do I get the 12Gb 4070 or the 16Gb 4060, decisions decisions
 
Last edited:
£329 = lots of competition with 12Gb 3060 cards, this old stock is going to be discounted

£439 = about £80 more expensive than 3060Ti cards

£550 = do I get the 12Gb 4070 or the 16Gb 4060, decisions decisions

IMG-3907.jpg


UK prices should be a little lower.
 
It seems like the RTX 4060 (8GB) will perform like a RTX 3060 TI but be cheaper.

I think they should probably price the TI at the same MSRP of the RTX 3060 TI when that launched (£369).
 
No it doesn't, his test used the highest streaming option, lol. Regardless, that doesn't explain why medium textures now look exactly like high did on launch day, while requiring half the vram.
His test used the highest streaming option? really? Apart from the fact he never said that further on in his video he actually posts a comparison.



He says in the video that texture streaming defaults to normal at medium preset.
 
His test used the highest streaming option? really? Apart from the fact he never said that further on in his video he actually posts a comparison.



He says in the video that texture streaming defaults to normal at medium preset.
But he never said he is using medium preset, the screenshot shows medium textures. Regardless, it doesn't matter, none of that explains why the textures look THAT much better, does it?
 
To further backup Alex/DF and Bencher, here we have the second last patch before 1.05 and patch 1.05, exact same settings maxed and shock horror, less vram usage in the same scene and also in the game menu :eek:

KcIekbp.png


1EA0U83.png


2RqdVxg.jpg


BzMm9Bg.jpg


X8Thzm2.gif


Do you really think Alex would have made that mistake in his comparison when talking about how the devs have optimised/lowered vram requirements and "fixed" the rendering issues with < high presets.....


Glad we got there in the end.
 

Want to know what I find hilarious, this bit in brackets:

(without upscaling)

Yet only a 4070 and upwards is breaking the 60 fps for 1% lows but nope, you aren't allowed to use upscaling especially on 3 year old mid tier gpus because it defeats the narrative :cry:


No one is arguing that nvidia and amd shouldn't increase vram sizes, this goes without saying that as of "now", you should not be paying £500 + for a 8GB gpu but the point is that well regarded broken games at release should not be used to backup the narrative for petty fanboy arguing/wins and solely putting the blame on the hardware manufacturers and no one else..... the finger should also be pointed at the developers for lazy optimisation i.e. the way Alex calls out the issues with the "game" and actually forces the developers to act and fix/improve the game performance for "everyone", unless people enjoy paying ££££ for the latest and greatest every year to brute force/avoid issues, in which case, watch and enjoy as even more pc gamers move over to console and the "master race" continue to pay an extortionate amount just to get a good experience :o
 
Back
Top Bottom