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

MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£320VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):170 W

MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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 76% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

6.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

9.4

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 76% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

▼Worse than 62%
6.0

Technical score

Technical score
6.0/ 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 73% of models
Score components

44%

4.1

Performance

24%

5.7

Memory

12%

9.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

6.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

▼Worse than 73%
6.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.0/ 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
▼ Worse than 83% of models

6.0

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 83%
?

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
  • msi-geforce-rtx-3060-gaming-trio
msi-geforce-rtx-3060-gaming-trio
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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio

Technical score
Technical score
6.0/ 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 73% of models
Score components:

44%

4.1

Performance

24%

5.7

Memory

12%

9.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

6.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

6.0
Reviews score
6.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,736 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,736 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 75.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,264 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,264 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 71% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
17,100 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 17,100 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 68.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
8,299 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 8,299 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 69.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
13.28 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 13.28 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 66.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% 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
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
360 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 360 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 61.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
15,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 15,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 67.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
170 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 170 W, which is lower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
170 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 170 W under peak load, which is lower than 66.6% of graphics cards and equal to 1.7% 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
212 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 212 W, which is lower than that of 54.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
170 W
Show more
Size
323x 140x 56 mm
Length
323 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 323 mm long, which is longer than 76.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Height
140 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 140 mm tall, which is taller than 79.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.4% 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
996 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 996 g, which is lighter than 55% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of Graphics cards.
Show more

MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 20.9% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (170 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    170 W vs 215 W
  • 20.5% higher sentiment score
    9.4 vs 7.8
  • 7.1% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,875 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,875 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 20.5% higher sentiment score
    9.4 vs 7.8
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 7.1% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,875 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,875 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports LHR limiting
    This graphics card supports an LHR limiter, while the average graphics card does not. 7.5% of Graphics cards support one.
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 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
  • 20.9% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (170 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    170 W vs 215 W
  • 29.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,777 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,777 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 31.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,320 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,320 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • 12 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    28 vs 40
  • 43.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (213.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    213.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.0/ 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
    ▼ Worse than 83% of models

    6.0

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.0 vs 7.2
  • 29.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,777 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,777 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 31.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,320 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,320 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 12 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    28 vs 40
  • 47.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (85.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    85.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 43.6% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (213.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    213.3 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
  • 41.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (13.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    13.28 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 32 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (112 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    112 vs 144
  • 40.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,736 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,736 points vs 14,779 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    February 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 24.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (17,100 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    17,100 points vs 22,638 points
  • 42.5% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,264 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,264 points vs 9,148 points
  • 56.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (12.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    12.74 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 58.3% 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.
    0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 21.1% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (15,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    15,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (3 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    3 MB vs 24 MB
  • 19.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (360 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    360 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 60% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (8 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    8 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 47.6% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (12,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    12,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 15 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (140 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    140 mm vs 125 mm
  • 40.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (323 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    323 mm vs 282.2 mm

Video reviews

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

Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
bgeek.eu
≈ estimated
12/07/2021
Benchmark review · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X Trio is a quiet, cool card that handles 1440p well, but its size calls for a roomy case.
tweaktown.com
25/02/2021
Not graded yet

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio

  • Exceptional thermal performance, often maintaining temperatures below 60°C under load.
  • Extremely quiet operation, described by users as virtually silent even while gaming.
  • Premium build quality with a solid backplate that provides both aesthetic appeal and structural rigidity.
  • Generous 12GB of VRAM, making it a strong choice for both gaming and productivity tasks like video editing.
  • Attractive and customisable RGB lighting through MSI's Mystic Light software.

What customers don't like about MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio

  • Large physical footprint (323mm length) that requires a spacious case and may not fit in smaller builds.
  • Considered expensive compared to other RTX 3060 models, often carrying a premium price tag.
  • The 192-bit memory bus can limit bandwidth, making it less efficient at higher resolutions like 4K.
  • Heavy weight may lead to GPU sag without proper support, though a bracket is often included.
  • Higher power consumption during multi-monitor use compared to some previous-generation NVIDIA cards.

Verdict

The MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio is a premium mid-range graphics card featuring 12GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus and 3,584 CUDA cores based on the NVIDIA Ampere architecture. It distinguishes itself with a high factory overclock boost clock of 1852 MHz and a robust Tri Frozr 2 cooling system utilizing three Torx 4.0 fans for exceptional thermal management. Main pros include its highly efficient, whisper-quiet operation, substantial VRAM for modern titles, and a graphene backplate for added structural rigidity and heat dissipation. However, its massive physical footprint (323mm length) may not fit in smaller cases, and it requires two 8-pin power connectors, which might be considered over-engineered for a base 3060 chip.

Compare MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio 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 MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming Trio and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found