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 GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£310VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):115 W

GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC Review: Compare 117 technical specifications, 7 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 64% of models
Score components

40%

6.3

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

6.3

List score

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 64% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

▲Better than 62%
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

44%

5.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

9.6

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.9

Connectivity

▼Worse than 65%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 60% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (7)
5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each 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.
▲Better than 60%
6.3

List score

List score
6.3/ 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 (1)
List score: in 1 of 91 lists (1%)
★Better than 94%
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
  • gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
gigabyte-geforce-rtx-4060-gaming-oc
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 GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC

Based on 5 · 2

Reviewers like its quiet, effective cooling, but criticise the limited video memory and doubt it's worth upgrading to.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC

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 GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC

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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components:

44%

5.3

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

9.6

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.9

Connectivity

6.3
Reviews score
8.1
List score
6.3
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.9

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
11,413 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 11,413 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 63.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
7,833 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 7,833 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 60.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
18,158 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 18,158 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 65.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,178 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,178 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 64% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
15.67 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 15.67 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 62.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% 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
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% 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
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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% 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
115 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 115 W under peak load, which is lower than 87.4% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
115 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 115 W, which is lower than that of 87.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
115 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
281x 114x 40 mm
Length
281 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 281 mm long, which is shorter than 50.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1% of graphics cards.
Height
114 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 114 mm tall, which is shorter than 74.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,000 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,000 g, which is lighter than 50.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 3.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 28.1% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,460 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,460 MHz vs 1,920 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
  • 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
  • 1.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,550 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,550 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each 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.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 47.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (115 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    115 W vs 220 W
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (7)
    5 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each 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.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 28.1% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,460 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,460 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 1.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,550 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,550 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
  • 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
  • 47.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (115 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    115 W vs 220 W
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 8 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (59 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    59 °C vs 67 °C
  • 47.7% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (115 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    115 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 11 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (114 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    114 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
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 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
  • 17.1% lower list score
    List score
    6.3/ 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 (1)
    List score: in 1 of 91 lists (1%)
    6.3 vs 7.6
  • 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
  • 35.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (244.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    244.8 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
  • 24.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (122.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    122.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 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
  • 30.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (15.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    15.67 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 19.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (18,158 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    18,158 points vs 22,638 points
  • 22.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (11,413 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    11,413 points vs 14,779 points
  • 50% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.24 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 14.4% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (7,833 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    7,833 points vs 9,148 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
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 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
  • 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
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C

Video reviews

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

7.0
eTeknix
≈ estimated
30/06/2023
Full review · benchmarks, temperatures and noise tests
Verdict
GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC offers excellent cooling and quiet running, but it costs more than rivals and suits people replacing much older cards.
Overview video
Overview video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.6
custompc.com
✓ explicit
26/06/2024
Benchmark test · Gaming and power
Verdict
The Gigabyte RTX 4060 Gaming OC is a cool, efficient 1080p card with DLSS 3, but it trails the Radeon RX 7600 in rasterization and struggles beyond 1080p.
9.0
hardwareand.co
≈ estimated
21/09/2023
Hands-on test · Quiet, compact card
Verdict
The Gigabyte RTX 4060 Gaming OC is an excellent, very quiet card that handles Full HD well, though its oversized cooler makes it bulkier than the chip needs.
8.5
charlestech.fr
✓ explicit
30/07/2024
Hands-on test · Compact entry-level card
Verdict
The Gigabyte RTX 4060 Gaming OC is a compact, discreet entry-level card, but its narrower memory bus and 8GB of memory are steps back from the RTX 3060.
8.8
muycomputer.com
✓ explicit
29/06/2023
Hands-on test · 3D rendering
Verdict
The Gigabyte RTX 4060 Gaming OC is a quiet, trouble-free card with strong 3D rendering and DLSS 3 gaming, but ray tracing at 1440p needs upscaling.
8.0
it.ign.com
≈ estimated
11/12/2023
Hands-on test · Full HD gaming
Verdict
The Gigabyte RTX 4060 Gaming OC is a good Full HD card and an excellent one with DLSS 3, but its 128-bit bus holds it back at 1440p.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC

  • High power efficiency with low TDP (115W), requiring only a single 8-pin connector.
  • Excellent cooling performance from the triple-fan Windforce system, maintaining temps around 60°C.
  • Access to DLSS 3 Frame Generation and AV1 encoding for modern gaming and streaming.
  • Quiet operation even under heavy load compared to dual-fan alternatives.
  • Significant 1080p performance jump for users upgrading from GTX 1060 or RTX 2060 cards.
  • Dual BIOS feature allowing users to switch between OC and Silent modes.

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC

  • Limited 8GB VRAM and 128-bit memory bus can cause stutters in demanding modern AAA titles.
  • Relatively long card design (approx. 281-284mm) that may lead to GPU sag or fitment issues in small cases.
  • Underwhelming generational performance uplift over the previous RTX 3060 in pure rasterization.
  • Higher price point compared to base MSRP models and competitive AMD alternatives like the RX 7600.
  • Lack of rigidity in the cooler's end section due to the small PCB size.

Verdict

The Gigabyte GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC is a factory-overclocked mid-range graphics card built on the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores and a boosted clock speed of 2,550 MHz. Equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus and 4th Gen Tensor cores, it excels in 1080p gaming with full support for DLSS 3 Frame Generation and advanced ray tracing. Main pros include its robust triple-fan Windforce cooling system with alternate spinning fans, dual BIOS for a choice between performance or quiet operation, and exceptional power efficiency with a low 115W TDP. However, notable cons include its 8GB VRAM capacity which may limit performance at higher resolutions or in extremely texture-heavy titles, and its 281mm length which might be too large for some compact cases compared to dual-fan 4060 variants.

Compare GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC 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 GeForce RTX 4060 Gaming OC and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found