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

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£440VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):165 W

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications, 9 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.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 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 61% of models
Score components

40%

7.0

Technical score

25%

7.0

Reviews score

25%

7.0

List score

10%

8.8

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 61% of graphics cards
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

▲Better than 54%
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components

44%

6.0

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

▲Better than 51%
7.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.0/ 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 70% of models

7.0

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 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.
▼Worse than 70%
7.0

List score

List score
7.0/ 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 92 lists (1%)
★Better than 94%
  • nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-16gb
nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-16gb
Where to buy
    N/A~ £440
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 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

Based on 2 · 7

Reviewers like its cool, efficient running, DLSS and creative-work skills, but most call it overpriced and barely better than the cheaper model.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

Based on 151 owners sharing their experience in online comments

77%positive13%mixed10%negative

Owners praise its efficient gaming and AI performance, while price and limited memory cause the most frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Many owners feel the price is high for the performance, especially at launch, and say it was better value when it dropped to around 400 to 450 dollars or euros.14
  • Games that use more than 8GB of VRAM stutter, freeze, or run out of memory at higher settings, so owners of the 8GB version report problems in newer titles.7
  • Owners report games crashing or freezing when VRAM fills up, for example in Resident Evil 4 and Spider-Man Remastered, and some report crashes with ray tracing enabled.3
  • Owners say it is a 1080p card rather than a 1440p card, and say 1440p or 4K performance drops below expectations in demanding games.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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
▲ Better than 51% of models
Score components:

44%

6.0

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.5

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

7.0
Reviews score
7.0
List score
7.0
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

8.2

Price

7.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,463 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,463 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 55.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
8,091 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 8,091 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 57.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
22,704 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 22,704 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 52% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
12,059 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 12,059 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 50.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
22.06 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 22.06 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 52.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% 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
288 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 288 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 69.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% 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
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
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
25.92 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 25.92 Gbps, which is faster than on 51.7% of graphics cards and equal to 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
165 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 165 W, which is lower than that of 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
165 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 165 W under peak load, which is lower than 68.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% 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
165 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 165 W, which is lower than that of 69.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
165 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
240x 111x 40 mm
Length
240 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 240 mm long, which is shorter than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Height
111 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 111 mm tall, which is shorter than 83.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.1% 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
1,026 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,026 g, which is heavier than 50.9% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 20.3% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,310 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,310 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 23.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (165 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    165 W vs 215 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
  • 12.8% higher sentiment score
    8.8 vs 7.8
  • 20.3% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,310 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,310 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 1.2% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 23.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (165 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    165 W vs 215 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
  • 25% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (165 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    165 W vs 220 W
  • 6.2 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (29.2 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    29.2 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 14 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (111 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    111 mm vs 125 mm
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 35.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 48 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (136 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    136 vs 184
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 7.9% lower list score
    List score
    7.0/ 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 92 lists (1%)
    7.0 vs 7.6
  • 2.8% lower review score
    Reviews score
    7.0/ 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 70% of models

    7.0

    Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 7 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.
    7.0 vs 7.2
  • 48 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (136 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    136 vs 184
  • 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
  • 6 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (34 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    34 vs 40
  • 24.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (121.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    121.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 6 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (34 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    34 vs 40
  • 8.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (344.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    344.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 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
  • 35.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    288 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 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
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 7 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (74 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    74 °C vs 67 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

9.0
iVadim
≈ estimated
20/06/2024
Hands-on review · 4K gaming tests with DLSS and frame generation
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB offers a pleasant 4K experience with DLSS, though native 4K needs upscaling and some dips occur.
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
24/07/2023
Lab test · Doubled memory
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB is a 1080p card for maxed-out settings with ray tracing, but its narrow 128-bit memory bus limits bandwidth.
5.0
notebookcheck.com
≈ estimated
27/09/2023
Benchmark test · 8 GB vs 16 GB
Verdict
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB in the KFA2 EX 16 GB is a midrange card whose extra memory helps in some 4K and 1440p games but not at 1080p.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

  • Generous 16GB VRAM pool offers better future-proofing and stability in memory-heavy titles compared to the 8GB model.
  • Exceptional power efficiency with a low typical power draw (around 160W), making it ideal for compact Small Form Factor (SFF) builds.
  • Strong 1080p and capable 1440p gaming performance, especially when leveraging DLSS 3 and Frame Generation.
  • Access to the full suite of Ada Lovelace features, including AV1 encoding for streamers and creators.
  • Excellent thermal performance; most partner cards run cool and remarkably quiet under load.
  • Highly suitable for entry-level AI and creative workloads (like Stable Diffusion or LLMs) that benefit from the 16GB buffer.

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB

  • Poor value proposition due to the significant price premium over the 8GB version for the same underlying GPU core.
  • Narrow 128-bit memory bus severely limits bandwidth, often preventing the extra VRAM from translating into meaningful FPS gains at higher resolutions.
  • Minimal generational performance uplift over the previous RTX 3060 Ti in standard rasterization tasks.
  • Performance can drop significantly at 4K resolution due to bandwidth bottlenecks.
  • Face stiff competition from older or similarly priced cards (like the RTX 4070 or AMD's RX 7800 XT) which often offer better raw performance.

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB is a mid-range graphics card built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 4,352 CUDA cores, a 2.54 GHz boost clock, and a doubled 16GB GDDR6 VRAM capacity compared to the standard model. Its main characteristics include support for DLSS 3 Frame Generation, 3rd Gen Ray Tracing cores, and a highly efficient 165W TDP. The primary pros are its excellent power efficiency, superior 1080p and 1440p performance in modern titles, and the generous memory buffer which is ideal for VRAM-intensive creative tasks like AI generation or 3D rendering. However, it faces criticism for its narrow 128-bit memory bus which can bottle performance at higher resolutions, a significant price premium over the 8GB version without offering a core count increase, and relatively stagnant generational gains in raw rasterization speed.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB 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 NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found