I cannot believe that a xx60 gpu now costs $399. The 1060 was $249 and the 960 was $199 at launch. This new pricing and next gen consoles will be the death of mid-range/budget builds.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
RTX 3060 Ti is launching this Wednesday (2-December-2020) at $399.99
- Thread starter Earvin Infinity
- Start date
They're branding this as the Ti variant though... and the performance on average is just 10% below the 3070.
People keep saying this, but it's not like there haven't been substantial increases in performance within the tiers as well. The 3060Ti is launching at $399, which is the same price as the 1070 was 2 years ago and is nearly twice as powerful as said card.
The comparison matters more among price points than it does among whatever number Nvidia slaps on the card, which is irrelevant (especially given the 3060Ti shares a GPU core with the 3070 but not the rumored 3060). There's a reason beyond marketing that Nvidia says their new $400 card can match last gen's $700 card and not that it's 60% stronger than last gen's $400 card. Nvidia could have instead named the 3090/3080/3070/3060Ti as the Titan/3080Ti/3080/3070 and appeased people who are comparing among tiers, but that's not what they chose nor is it relevant to the value of the card.
It matters because there are literally no cards in that price bracket anymore. I bought a 580 3 years ago for $200, there are no new $200 cards, and certainly nothing that would be actually upgrade worthy in 200-300 range even now.
The old "midrange" is dead and gone. The new midrange is twice as much.
I felt like 3070 had a really good deal of buildup though. It just dropped off exponentially here.
the 3070 was the second thing they revealed at the main event. I wonder how the 3060 will be handled. they might make an event out of it as THE mainstream card at $300 with the 3050 Ti getting some spotlight and the 3050 getting a 1-day notice
GTX 960 was terrible in performance though the 1060 was pretty good. Even so, that doesn't even matter since the 3060 Ti is not the xx60 successor. Granted, the prices have been slowly creeping up but the performance difference between the 3060 Ti and 3070 is tiny. The 3070 is actually the worst between the two in terms of value. People have to also remember, GA104 is their second largest chip at the moment. Compare the past couple generations. For Pascal, it included - 1070, 1070 Ti and 1080. Turing - 2080 and eventually 2070/2080 Super. Ampere so far - 3060 Ti, 3070. It's not as terrible as it seems.
You're also talking about a card that released in the middle of a generation, not the launch. And the RX 580 competitor was the GTX 1060, how about wait until 3060 pricing is revealed if $300 range is within your budget.
Last edited:
Do any of you think this is a worthy upgrade from the 1660S? Or just get the 3080 and hold on for a long time?
this video has a comparison with the 1660S and the 3060Ti is about 100% faster
Has there been any word of a 3080 FE restock, or 20GB 3080 Ti happening any time soon?
My 1070 really isn't holding up well in many of the games I'm playing now - so I'm tempted to try and get one of these if I can, even if it's not the kind of performance upgrade I was looking for.
At this point, if I can get one, it feels like I could probably resell it for what I paid at some point further down the line if the 3080 FE/3080 Ti ever appears for sale.
This looks to be about twice as fast as the 1070, whereas the 3080 is three times as fast and would have been a more appealing upgrade for the money.
That CPU uses dual-channel memory, which means that it should be added in pairs.
My 1070 really isn't holding up well in many of the games I'm playing now - so I'm tempted to try and get one of these if I can, even if it's not the kind of performance upgrade I was looking for.
At this point, if I can get one, it feels like I could probably resell it for what I paid at some point further down the line if the 3080 FE/3080 Ti ever appears for sale.
This looks to be about twice as fast as the 1070, whereas the 3080 is three times as fast and would have been a more appealing upgrade for the money.
You should add another 8GB memory stick of equal spec, if you can.
That CPU uses dual-channel memory, which means that it should be added in pairs.
I cringed so hard at this part of Linus review. What a stupid nonsensical comparison. And they even got XSX price wrong.
Ah, I see. Considering I just got my 1660s in August, I think I may as well wait until 3080s are available.
I can get where he's going with it all. The consoles are an amazing value versus a 3060 for people who are trying to make a decision on either a PC or console.
I always look at the performance numbers with RT enabled without DLSS...that'll give you a good look at raw performance...even with DLSS if you're just a small bit above 60fps then as games get more powerful the card will not hold up well
To be fair those are the correct Xbox prices in $CAD, I'm sure it's an easy mistake to make for them.I cringed so hard at this part of Linus review. What a stupid nonsensical comparison. And they even got XSX price wrong.
Midrange cards still exist. The 2060 launched for $350, which while a bit high, decreased shortly to $300 after AMD revealed their midrange cards. The entire 1600 line capped out at $280. In fact, the 6000 series AMD cards are such a big deal because they're the first time AMD isn't focusing on the low-mid end exclusively in years. If the issue is that there's nothing shiny in the midrange yet (which makes no sense anyway considering most of the midrange cards now came out just over a year ago), that's because Nvidia and AMD always launch their cards from strongest to weakest so that anybody on the fence between two tiers chooses the more pricey card if impatience gets the best of them.
The 3000 series entry/midrange cards will come, they'll just come later on once the "hardcore gamers" have gotten their fill and can't be tempted by cheaper cards. Rumors are the 3060 should come out in January for probably $300, which isn't too long to wait considering most people haven't gotten their high end cards yet anyway.
These numbers are with DLSS off, though. Only games that slather on the effects like Boundary, Minecraft, Quake, etc are the ones that bring the card to sub 30fps. Everything else can run over 60fps at best and over 30fps at worst
There are lots of people weighing a new console purchase vs a graphics card purchase right now.I cringed so hard at this part of Linus review. What a stupid nonsensical comparison. And they even got XSX price wrong.
The comparison itself is valid because these products do compete against each other despite the value proposition and functionality being so different as a package.
But if you have a PC with an older card and also are potentially in the market for a console these are all products you might be debating between.
I was looking at the Hardware Unboxed review...I'm also focused on 1440p since that's the resolution I game at...I time-stamped the video to the ray-tracing 1440p chart...
https://youtu.be/Owrk_OnaPJo?t=1104
Agreed. The only thing tipping the scales for me is that I need to upgrade my productivity and photography hardware too. If I didn't need to, I would go for a console in a heartbeat.
I'll chime in and say that my PS5 purchase has me considering just skipping this generation of cards unless they drop more Super variants down the line.
Mid range is a price point, not a performance target. The $250 cards are still coming, and they'll probably still meet or beat a 1080ti. That would completely mop the floor with the current leaders at that price range and still leave headroom for the 3060ti.
No one would have any reason to be unhappy with that scenario unless they still can't make enough GPUs to meet demand next year.
No idea why your watching hardware unboxed for RT performance, they don't like RT think it's pointless and it looks like because of blow back on previous reviews are now including 1 RT benchmark on a game with 1 RT effect. Maybe go checkout gamers nexus, who also don't particularly like RT or DLSS but provide better data.
You can discuss and ask all future PC related questions in the PC Builders Thread.
To answer your question, without the context of what you paid to frame my opinion, I'll say it's a solid build, but you probably could have done slightly better on value as far as the CPU goes.
Nah the "thousands" meme is still good and dead, if you wait until availability drops things back to MSRP, and aren't just targeting the absolute fastest components on the tier list.
For some reason, 3060ti is 429€ MSRP (vs. 399$) while 3070 is 519€ (vs. 499$).
Same VAT rate. I can't explain that extra 10€.
Same VAT rate. I can't explain that extra 10€.
even with the Gamers Nexus performance charts it shows pretty bad 1440p RTX performance with DLSS disabled- Control, Minecraft...and even Shadow of the Tomb Raider is just 66fps...games are only going to have more RTX features over the coming years and the 3060 Ti doesn't seem like the card to get for good RT performance
It's faster than a 6800XT in RT heavy loads without DLSS enabled. Considering the Series X is only ~2060 levels in light RT loads (and the PS5 below even that), that's a substantial amount of RT performance for a $400 card especially when you consider any title with RT is likely to have DLSS as well.
You need to set realistic expectations here, ray tracing is extremely demanding and Nvidia are offering much better RT performance on their $400 card than AMD are offering on their $750 card (no, the 6800XT isn't a $680 card).
In a fully path traced Minecraft at 1440p you can get 83 FPS average if you enable DLSS. That's a fully path traced game running with equivalent or better to native 1440p image quality comfortably above 60fps on a $400 card. You're really underestimating how big of an achievement that is. Even disabling DLSS you're getting 41 FPS.
AMD on the other hand? Their $580 card delivers just 25 FPS average at 1440p and they have no technology to improve that performance with AI upscaling. So practically speaking from an end user perspective, in path traced titles that push the RT performance of the card you're getting a 3x performance increase over AMD's high end and a 4x performance increase over consoles. How is that not impressive?
Cyberpunk benchmarks are going to be interesting because with RT settings cranked up and DLSS enabled (why wouldn't you if image quality is the same or better?) I expect this card to comfortably beat AMD's $1000 flagship. Again, when a $400 card can beat the competition's flagship, how is the ray tracing performance disappointing?
Check out the Digital Foundry (on Eurogamer) and Gamer's Nexus reviews for a good overview of RT performance.
Until Cyberpunk launches, Control is going to be the best game to benchmark to understand what performance in a high end hybrid renderer looks like in that title you're getting better than 6800XT performance with the 3060 To right in the middle between a 2080 Super and 2080 Ti.
If you want to understand the raw ray tracing performance of the card without rasterisation performance influencing the results then you need something path traced like Minecraft or Quake 2. In both of those cases it again sits halfway between a 2080 Super and 2080 Ti. Quake doesn't support AMD cards but in Minecraft there is no competition, there's a huge lead even without DLSS (more than 60% vs. a 6800 at 1440p) and with DLSS enabled get into silly 3-4x performance increases (at 4K a 3060 Ti with DLSS enabled is a straight up 4x performance boost over the 6800xt).
Now I have to caveat that with the fact that I'm not convinced that fully path traced titles are all that relevant. Performance on consoles is just going to be far too slow to be able to build a game around path tracing, so it may be more of an academic exercise. High end hybrid renderers like Control are very relevant though. Especially considering the biggest game of the year is releasing in a week and taking a similar approach to RT as Control (it has RT reflections, shadows, AO and diffuse lighting).
Last edited:
In that case, I guess I'll get a 3050Ti instead, especially if the 3060 is nowhere near $300.
But I dunno, it's hard to make plans for a new GPU purchase nowadays, with all the low stock and scalpers stealing all the cards. I don't think I'll be able to upgrade until later next year.
What exactly are you looking for? I can't see any hardware (pc or console) on the market that does what you seem to want? 1440p max RT at 90+fps (66fps tombraider wasnt enough so im guessing you wanted higher) without any resolution scaling with a price <=500?
What gpu do you currently have? if its a 2080s or better this card wasn't really ment to be your upgrade path.
edit: and on a side note minecraft is fully path traced you wont see more "RTX" features than that in new games over the coming years.
Last edited:
3070 are close to 600€ in nearly all retailers, at least around here, suspect the 3060ti will get closer to 500€ if that's the case, in fact the 1070 was around that price when it was released.
you're ignoring the Minecraft, Control and Quake 2 1440p RTX numbers...Gamers Nexus specifically states that Shadow of the Tomb Raider doesn't use heavy RT effects
Minecraft and quake rtx are fully path traced you wont be seeing fully path traced AA and AAA games any time soon.
Why would you disable DLSS in RT enabled titles on an Nvidia card? You're just downgrading performance for no visual benefit. No one is going to play these games with RT enabled and DLSS disabled. It's useful to understand from an academic perspective but it's not a realistic end user use case.
Until a couple of months ago to get better than 2080 Super RT performance your only option was a $1200 GPU. What exactly were you expecting from a $400 GPU?
What's your opinion on AMD's RT performance and the RT performance on consoles if this is so disappointing? AMD are offering less RT performance for $1000, so I think this is very competitive RT performance for a $400 card.
I like to use native RTX performance as a true baseline of performance...the 3080 cards can do 1440p native RTX 60+ fps without DLSS enabled...AMD's RT performance is pretty bad and I wouldn't go with a Big Navi card for that reason...in all other respects Big Navi trumps Ampere but RT is the future...but AMD's poor RT performance is understandable because this is their 1st generation ray-tracing card...the 2nd gen cards should be much better in this regard...if AMD releases a DLSS equivalent this generation then that will help as well
If you'll notice the $100 saved then I'd stick with the 3060 Ti. That's a very low resolution/refresh rate target so you're going to be hard pressed to notice a tangible difference.
The midrange 60 series card, even if it is the Ti model, costs over 400 goddamn euros at MSRP. I remember paying a bit under 600 euros for a GTX 1080, and that was already noticeably more expensive than recent previous gen flagships.
So if AMD have DLSS you'll use it then? lol what gpu do you have currently?
Well you're not in the market for a $400 card then. No one should be expecting to run high end RT and path traced titles at 1440p native with 60fps on a $400 card that's wholly unrealistic. DLSS was invented precisely because that is an unrealistic goal. No one is going to be enabling RT and disabling DLSS, it's not a real use case. By your logic I assume everyone should just throw their new consoles in the trash while they're at it as well? They're not going to achieve what you're asking for at 1080p let alone 1440p.
You're being far too generous to AMD there. Their first generation RT performance is much slower than Nvidia's first generation RT performance. This isn't a case of first generation vs. second generation, their solution is just much slower and doesn't hardware accelerate as much of the pipeline as Nvidia's first generation solution does.
im holding my pitchforks back until we see the 3060. if its 100 lower and still matches the 2080 then it's still a pretty good midrange offering. Both the vanilla 2070 and 3070 are definitely bigger drop offs from xx80 than usual, but NV has also been putting out a lot more midrange cards also. The gap between xx60 and xx70 has never been smaller due to this. Instead of just xx60 or xx60 and something else, we had 5 midrange Turings last time. 1660, 1660s, 1660ti, 2060 and 2060s. And I'd say the 1660s/2060 post-price drop were actually quite well positioned.
I'm talking about official MSRP prices on nvidia shop, not street prices. There's an inconsistency in the pricing conversion between $ and €.