OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£370VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):115 W

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite
6.9/10

Overall score

Score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

40%

6.3

Technical score

25%

6.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 70% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 54%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components

44%

5.2

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

10

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.9

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 66%
6.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

6.3

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

8.1

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 79%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
  • gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
gigabyte-aorus-geforce-rtx-4060-elite
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite

Based on 4 · 1

Reviewers praise the strong cooling and frame generation, but most feel the video memory is too limited.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite

Based on 197 owners sharing their experience in online comments

78%positive15%mixed7%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and efficiency, while limited video memory and softer upscaling remain the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say 8GB of video memory forces them to lower texture settings in some demanding games, and they expect it to limit performance in future titles.7
  • Owners say DLSS at 1080p looks softer and blurrier than native resolution, and frame generation can cause shimmering or flickering textures.3
  • Owners report stutter and frame drops below 60 fps in some demanding games, and some laptop versions dip further under load.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
Score components:

44%

5.2

Performance

24%

4.0

Memory

12%

10

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.0

Design

4%

8.9

Connectivity

6.3
Reviews score
6.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

8.6

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
10,558 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 10,558 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 68.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 67.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,053 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,053 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 63.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,177 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,177 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 64.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
16.22 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 16.22 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 61.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
272 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 272 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 76.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
17,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 17,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 61% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
1.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 1.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
115 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 115 W, which is lower than that of 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.7% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
132 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 132 W under peak load, which is lower than 80.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
135 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 135 W, which is lower than that of 81.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
115 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
299x 128x 56 mm
Length
299 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 299 mm long, which is longer than 56.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
56 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 56 mm tall, which is shorter than 95.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,420 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,420 g, which is heavier than 71.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 5.4% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,640 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,640 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 46.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (115 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    115 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 69 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (56 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    56 mm vs 125 mm
  • 21.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 38.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (135 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    135 W vs 220 W
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 9 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (58 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    58 °C vs 67 °C
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 5.4% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,640 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,640 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (12 vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    12 vs 8
  • 46.5% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (115 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    115 W vs 215 W
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 38.6% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (135 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    135 W vs 220 W
  • 9 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (58 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    58 °C vs 67 °C
  • 69 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (56 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    56 mm vs 125 mm
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 16 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    24 vs 40
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 39.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 33% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (253.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    253.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 12.5% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models

    6.3

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    8.1

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    4 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.3 vs 7.2
  • 16 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    24 vs 40
  • 88 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (96 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    96 vs 184
  • 16 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (24 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    24 vs 40
  • 33% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (253.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    253.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 48 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (96 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    96 vs 144
  • 21.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (126.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    126.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 28.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (16.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    16.22 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 28.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (10,558 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    10,558 points vs 14,779 points
  • 34.4% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,000 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,000 points vs 9,148 points
  • 4.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,830 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,830 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 15.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,053 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,053 points vs 22,638 points
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 39.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    272 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 10.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (17,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    17,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 93.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 6.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (42 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    42 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 5 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (42 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    42 °C vs 37 °C
  • 16.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (299 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    299 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 40% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,420 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,420 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

5.0
Tim and Tech [TheGnaaHD]
≈ estimated
03/08/2023
Hands-on review · cooling, benchmarks and price-performance
Verdict
GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite has a great cooler and build, but the RTX 4060 is hard to recommend at its price.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.8
charlestech.fr
✓ explicit
17/05/2024
Lab test · Large triple-fan card
Verdict
The Aorus GeForce RTX 4060 Elite is a solid 1080p and 2K card with good cooling, but its 8GB of memory and narrow memory bus are its weak points.
8.0
pctuning.cz
✓ explicit
30/06/2023
Lab test · Cooling and power
Verdict
The Aorus GeForce RTX 4060 Elite is a cool, quiet 1080p card drawing only 115W, but its 8GB memory trails the older RTX 3060's 12GB.
8.9
muycomputer.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2023
Lab test · DLSS 3 gaming
Verdict
The Aorus RTX 4060 Elite 8G is a mid-range card with huge DLSS 3 gains and temperatures below 60°C, but its 8GB memory and bulky three-slot size are drawbacks.
6.0
xanxogaming.com
≈ estimated
29/06/2023
Overview · Premium model
Verdict
The Aorus GeForce RTX 4060 Elite is a low-power card whose DLSS 3 frame generation lifts frame rates, but its 8GB of memory and narrow bus limit it.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite

  • Excellent 1080p performance, handling most modern games smoothly at high settings
  • Effective cooling from the triple-fan system, keeping temperatures low under load
  • Quiet operation with semi-passive fans that stop during low-load tasks
  • Significantly better power efficiency compared to previous generation cards
  • Support for modern features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and AV1 encoding
  • High aesthetic appeal with unique RGB ring lighting around the fans
  • Includes a protection metal backplate and dual BIOS for added versatility

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite

  • Large physical size (nearly 12 inches long) makes it difficult to fit in compact or small-form-factor builds
  • Limited 8GB VRAM can cause stuttering or performance drops in memory-intensive titles or higher resolutions
  • Premium price point is close to the faster RTX 4060 Ti, affecting its overall value proposition
  • The 128-bit memory bus is a downgrade compared to the 192-bit bus found on the previous RTX 3060
  • Long cooler design can lead to slight sagging, potentially requiring a support bracket
  • RGB software (Gigabyte Control Centre/Fusion) is sometimes described as buggy or unintuitive

Verdict

The Gigabyte Aorus GeForce RTX 4060 Elite 8G is a premium mid-range graphics card built on the ultra-efficient Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores and an elevated boost clock of 2640 MHz. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit interface and utilizes the Windforce cooling system with three 90mm alternate-spinning fans and a protective metal backplate for superior thermal management. Main pros include its exceptional power efficiency (115W TDP), advanced AI capabilities like DLSS 3 frame generation, and an extended 4-year warranty. However, its primary cons are the relatively low 8GB VRAM capacity which may limit performance in memory-intensive 1440p gaming, and its large triple-slot design which might not fit in smaller PC cases.

Compare GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of GIGABYTE AORUS GeForce RTX 4060 Elite and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found