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

Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£290VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):115 W

Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual
7.2/10

Overall score

Score
7.2/ 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 58% of models
Score components

40%

6.1

Technical score

25%

8.0

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 58% of graphics cards
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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–² Better than 86% of models
Score components

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–²Better than 86%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 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 71% of models
Score components

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.0

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 71%
8.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 51% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
â–²Better than 51%
?

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
  • palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
  • palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
  • palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
  • palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
palit-geforce-rtx-4060-dual
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 Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual

Based on 6 · 3

Reviewers praise DLSS, efficiency, quiet fans and solid 1080p play, but say it struggles in demanding games against rivals.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual

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 Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

3.9

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.0

Design

4%

9.6

Connectivity

6.1
Reviews score
8.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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–² Better than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

7.2

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
11,352 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 11,352 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 64.7% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,054 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,054 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 66.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,551 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,551 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 62.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,207 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,207 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 63.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
15.11 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 15.11 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 63.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
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
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
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
600 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 600 W PSU, which is lower than that of 53.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.6% 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
249.9x 123.5x 40.2 mm
Length
249.9 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 249.9 mm long, which is shorter than 69.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
124 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 124 mm tall, which is shorter than 51.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% 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
632 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 632 g, which is lighter than 84.9% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 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
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 32.3 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (249.9 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    249.9 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 4.6% better value for money
    Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.75 vs 7.4).
    7.75 vs 7.41
  • 11.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.0/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 51% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 3 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.
    8.0 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 4.6% better value for money
    Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.75 vs 7.4).
    7.75 vs 7.41
  • 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
  • 7.7% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (600 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    600 W vs 650 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
  • 32.3 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (249.9 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    249.9 mm vs 282.2 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 37.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (236.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    236.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 26.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (118.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    118.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/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
  • 1.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,460 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,460 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 33.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (15.1 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    15.11 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 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
  • 23.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (11,352 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    11,352 points vs 14,779 points
  • 33.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,054 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,054 points vs 9,148 points
  • 13.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,551 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,551 points vs 22,638 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C

Video reviews

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

8.0
Xtian C
≈ estimated
29/07/2023
Hands-on review · 1080p and 1440p benchmarks and thermals
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual is a good budget 1080p card, but it isn't worth upgrading from an RTX 30 series card.
7.0
Tech Critter
≈ estimated
28/06/2023
Hands-on review · 1080p, 1440p, 4K and synthetic tests
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual is great for 1080p gaming and low power use, but 4K performance and gains over the 3060 Ti fall short.
8.0
GT Lim
≈ estimated
28/06/2023
Hands-on review · gaming and ray tracing tests
Verdict
The Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual is good for 1080p gaming and recommended on price, but its 8GB VRAM limits high-detail ray tracing.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
28/06/2023
Full review · Compact, quiet card
Verdict
The Palit RTX 4060 Dual is a compact, quiet 1080p card that keeps its fans off at idle, but 8 GB on a 128-bit bus leaves little headroom.
7.0
club386.com
≈ estimated
28/06/2023
Benchmark review · Mainstream card
Verdict
The Palit RTX 4060 Dual is an efficient, cool 1080p card with strong DLSS 3 gains, but the faster RTX 3060 Ti is a tough rival.
9.0
lowyat.net
≈ estimated
28/06/2023
Benchmark review · Entry-level 1080p card
Verdict
The Palit Dual GeForce RTX 4060 is a quiet, low-power 1080p card, but it trails the RTX 4060 Ti and drops below 60 fps in Watch Dogs Legion.
7.0
me.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
05/07/2023
Benchmark review · 1080p gaming card
Verdict
The Palit RTX 4060 Dual is a good 1080p upgrade for owners of GTX 1060 or RTX 2060 cards, but barely edges out the RTX 3060 Ti.
8.0
techporn.ph
✓ explicit
29/06/2023
Lab test · Gaming and noise
Verdict
The Palit RTX 4060 Dual is a no-frills, quiet card that runs most games well at 1080p, and DLSS 3 makes 1440p ray tracing playable.
7.0
hexmojo.com
≈ estimated
01/06/2023
Hands-on review · Customisable shroud
Verdict
The Palit RTX 4060 Dual suits makers, since its 3D-printable shroud lets you design your own look.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual

  • Excellent power efficiency with a very low 115W board power
  • Support for DLSS 3 and Frame Generation provides significant FPS boosts
  • Solid 1080p gaming performance, maintaining 60+ FPS in most titles
  • Compact dual-fan design suitable for small form factor (SFF) builds
  • Quiet operation even under heavy gaming loads
  • Includes AV1 encoding support for improved streaming and video editing
  • Unique 'Maker' feature allows users to 3D-print custom covers
  • Affordable entry point into the NVIDIA 40-series architecture

What customers don't like about Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual

  • 8GB VRAM is considered low for modern titles and future-proofing
  • Limited 128-bit memory bus can cause performance drops at higher resolutions
  • Generational performance leap over the RTX 3060 is relatively small
  • PCIe 4.0 x8 interface can bottleneck performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems
  • Plastic backplate and shroud feel less premium than competitor models
  • Struggles with 1440p gaming without heavy reliance on DLSS
  • Lacks DisplayPort 2.0 support
  • Higher MSRP compared to competitors like the Radeon RX 7600

Verdict

The Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual is a compact, two-slot graphics card built on NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores, a boost clock of 2460 MHz, and 8GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 128-bit memory bus. It excels as an energy-efficient 1080p gaming solution with a low 115W TGP, offering advanced features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation, third-generation Ray Tracing cores, and a silent 0-dB tech cooling system with dual 95mm fans. While it provides excellent power-to-performance value and quiet operation, its main drawbacks include a relatively small performance uplift over the previous generation and limited 8GB VRAM, which may struggle with demanding 1440p textures or future-proofing.

Compare Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual 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 Palit GeForce RTX 4060 Dual and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found