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

Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 review: 117 specs compared

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

Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

40%

6.0

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

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 62% of graphics cards
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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 75% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

â–²Better than 75%
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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 72%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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
  • yeston-cute-pet-geforce-rtx-4060
yeston-cute-pet-geforce-rtx-4060
Where to buy
    N/A~ £290
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060

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 Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060

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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components:

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

9.3

Design

4%

9.5

Connectivity

6.0
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
10,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 10,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 69% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% 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
19,545 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,545 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 62.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,177 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,177 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 64.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
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
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
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
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
Size
186x 128x 41 mm
Length
188 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 188 mm long, which is shorter than 92.2% of graphics cards.
Height
128 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 128 mm tall, which is taller than 56.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.3% 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
563 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 563 g, which is lighter than 88.5% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 94.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (188 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    188 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 21.4% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,125 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 94.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (188 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    188 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
  • 44.5% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (563 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    563 g vs 1,014 g
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 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
  • 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
  • 29% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (10,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    10,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,830 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,830 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 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
  • 13.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,545 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,545 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 15 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (82 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    82 °C vs 67 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060

  • Unique and adorable 'Cute Pet' aesthetic that stands out from standard black 'gamer' designs
  • Compact Mini-ITX form factor makes it ideal for small-form-factor PC builds
  • Highly power-efficient with a low TGP (115W), requiring less power than predecessors like the RTX 3060
  • Effective 1080p gaming performance with support for modern features like DLSS 3 and Frame Generation
  • Cooling design utilizes a copper base and heat pipes that effectively guide air toward the rear exhaust
  • Includes a dual BIOS design allowing users to toggle between frequency settings for performance gains

What customers don't like about Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060

  • Design is polarized; some users find the aesthetic 'childish' or an 'abomination' rather than cute
  • Uses a black PCB instead of a white one, which some enthusiasts feel detracts from the overall white/blue theme
  • The 8GB of VRAM and 128-bit memory bus can limit performance at higher resolutions like 1440p
  • Heavily reuses the design from previous generations (like the RX 580), leading to some disappointment over a lack of innovation
  • Often priced at a premium compared to standard RTX 4060 models due to its unique custom shroud

Verdict

The Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 is a Mini-ITX graphics card based on the NVIDIA Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 3,072 CUDA cores, 8GB of GDDR6 memory, and a 128-bit bus interface. It operates at a base clock of 1,830 MHz with a boost clock of 2,460 MHz and is powered by a single 8-pin connector within a 115W TDP. Its primary appeal is its compact, 188mm-long single-fan design with a white animal-themed shroud and an anodized aluminum alloy backplate, making it ideal for small-form-factor and white-aesthetic builds. Notable pros include its excellent power efficiency and support for modern features like DLSS 3 and advanced ray tracing. However, some users may find the 8GB of VRAM and narrow 128-bit memory bus limiting for more demanding future titles at higher resolutions, and its single-fan cooling solution may result in higher operating temperatures compared to larger multi-fan alternatives.

Compare Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 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 Yeston Cute Pet GeForce RTX 4060 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found