Gigabyte's New RTX 4060 GPU Fits Three Fans on a Low-Profile Design (theverge.com) 40
Gigabyte has launched a new low-profile GeForce RTX 4060 OC graphics card that's designed to fit into mini PC builds. Unlike many of the other GPUs meant for compact PCs, this one comes with three fans instead of just two or one. From a report: That three-fan setup might make it a bit difficult to fit into some small form factor cases, as the card measures 182mm long. But it makes up for that with its thin 40mm height and 69mm width.
Despite its slender design, the chip comes outfitted with two DisplayPort and two HDMI ports as well. It also comes with a low-profile bracket, which is a nice touch. While it's nice that Gigabyte has made a 40-series chip specifically for low-profile builds, Nvidia's GeForce RTX 4060 isn't that great of a card to begin with. The GPU barely outpaces the older (and slightly more expensive) 3060 Ti, as it comes with an underwhelming 8GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus.
Despite its slender design, the chip comes outfitted with two DisplayPort and two HDMI ports as well. It also comes with a low-profile bracket, which is a nice touch. While it's nice that Gigabyte has made a 40-series chip specifically for low-profile builds, Nvidia's GeForce RTX 4060 isn't that great of a card to begin with. The GPU barely outpaces the older (and slightly more expensive) 3060 Ti, as it comes with an underwhelming 8GB of VRAM and a 128-bit memory bus.
Why? (Score:2)
This GPU doesn't use much power, just 115 watts.
Re: (Score:2)
You could run them slower?
If they could make it quieter than their competitors, it would have a good place in the market for low-profile machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, given the demand for GPUs in the cloud, doesn't make sense to me.
They should be making massively dense boxes of these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Because three smaller fans are less efficient than one large fan.
Re: (Score:2)
50% more fans = 50% faster CPU. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Airflow is airflow. Those go into VERY constrained spaces. Not tons of extra airflow room either.
To get it small they removed heatsink surface area. That's what was transfering the heat before. Now greater airflow can make up for the shift.
What is the common TDP for cards there? I don't use these, so maybe 115 watts is a lot (comparatively)?
Re: (Score:2)
My current PC has 5 16x slots supporting up to 64 lanes concurrently
Your motherboard was not designed for gaming and shouldn't have a 4090 in it.
ONLY 8GB?! (Score:2)
... only 8GB ram is intentionally shitting all over your customers.
haha, man. the first pc video card i ever owned had two megabytes of vram and that felt *huge*. how times change! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! Mine was a Diamond Viper VLB 2MB. Now, you can't play at typical resolutions on newer games without 200 times as much video memory....
Raw performance is not the only consideration (Score:5, Insightful)
Nvidia's GeForce RTX 4060 isn't that great of a card to begin with.
Not all of us are engaging in a fps pissing contest. We don't need every conceivable rendering feature enabled. If you have to take screen shots and zoom into pixels to tell the difference I can probably do without the feature during play.
What makes the 4060 nice is a process shrink that allows for lower power / cooler operations. Some of us wait for these process shrinks to get a cooler, quieter card. If you can hear your GPUs fan, that's not quite a win, that's a tradeoff.
Personally I have not had a problem using such cards over decades of gameplay. Current video games tend not to require the latest and greatest cards.
Re: (Score:2)
You say the market exists but the sales numbers don't back that up.
The 4060 just came out.
Its not the only card available that matches what I described.
Usage numbers show the most common card in July on Steam was a "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650".
Re: (Score:1)
Agree fully with your points.
Plus, their design of the card only being (what looks like) half height ALSO will much help with the general airflow inside any case. It's not just that you have to get heat off the card, but if you're outputting 35C+ air into a case that's already 35C ambient, it's not going to do you much good.
Personally I've found a lot of the very high end cards tend to use (probably no choice) the furthest reaches of the slot envelope, making it hard to to address some of the practicalitie
Re: (Score:2)
I'd state this differently. "It's relative..."
The parent obviously used or compared against high end cards. What is available makes this seem weak.
The constraints are the "special sauce" though. You can't compare against a 5090 or whatever. And I'm not an expert in these little things either.
Perf/result per $ (and per watt, both) seem like useful graphs of low profile cards to use when looking for why this might be special. Constrain down to the size and you can't remove 200+ watts of heat.
I'm sure lot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the card is that you can get a cheaper card that draws less power and have similar performance by buying a card from the previous generation.
I apply the same process upgrade strategy to AMD. It's not NVIDIA specific. That said, some people need or want NVIDIA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ofc, the current version of GPU:s are all broken except the top line but there the cost is broken. However if you are still on 1080p (which the 4060 is built for) then there is really no reason to upgrade to it from whatever you have (it's not much better fps:wise and the vram is too low for future textures), much better is to either move on to 1440+ and spend lots of dollars or to simply wait out to see what next generation will bring.
I'm on a 4K, with a 1060. One game I know is running in native 4K is getting 60fps most of the time, on rare occasions it drops to 50 fps. On a 1440 I was getting fps in the 70s. Admittedly I haven't checked the other two I usually play, they might be running the 4K in 1080p for all I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if you get 60fps in 4k with a gtx1060 then you must run with very low settings, ...
I'm using whatever the games auto configured.
... the 3gb vram
It has 6GB
What is the use case to run in 4k with such bad graphics?
It's not bad, it looks good, it plays fine. It looks better than a Radeon 570 on 1440.
1080 on ultra would probably give you much better gaming performance.
I'm getting low 60s fps, on rare occasions it drops to low 50s. Game performance is fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ah they released both a 3g and 6g version of it back then just like they did with the 4060ti now, I see. Well auto probably sets everything to low, and when you say that you compare with 1440 I wonder if you do that on the same monitor so that what you see is the montor upscaling. IMHO 4k on anything less than 55" is useless, at least for gaming.
While many high end features may be off, it's not at the lowest on the GTX 1060 6GB. The Radeon 570 4GB has a less feature-full look, it's not simply resolution. Both 4K and 1440 are 27". In Windows I have to set the GUI to 150% scaling to make things readable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why are you running 4k on a tiny 27" monitor? At work we have 4k at 32" and that is a huge waste of resources, done several blind tests with people and around 55"-60" is where people can distinguish between 1440 and 4k
I saw an improvement under Windows and Linux, scaling the UI by 150% made things readable. While this may result in a superficial resemblance to lower resolution monitors the objects on the screen (ex text) are still drawn with a greater number of pixels resulting in clearer, crisper, text and graphics.
55-60" are too large, it requires a head on a swivel. 27-28" is more comfortable, it requires more eye movement and less head movement. I.e. at 27-28" the full screen is basically in my field of vision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have not checked Diablo 3, its in whatever it auto configured.
Now this is an old I7 system but it does have 32GB R
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much that the current video games require more graphics power, but that people are awakening to the benefits of higher resolution screens (i.e. more than 1080p) and multiple screens.
I have a triple screen set-up, so you can imagine how well a card designed for just one would fare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your concerns are valid. That's why different models exist.
The problem here is the price/performance is not in line with what it traditionally is for a new generation of GPUs. The 60 model is generally the most popular, offering a good mix of performance and value. Usually when a new generation comes out, the 60 model performs about as well as the 70 model of the previous generation. This time around, that's only true in games that use the latest features, and there are cases where the 3060 outperforms the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if they followed the pattern they followed for the past 20-ish years, this same card would have been named the 4050 and cost $50-$100 less than they're asking for it now. You'd get exactly what you're asking for, but for less money.
It's the price increase that's everyone is objecting to, not the product.
Re: (Score:2)
How many slots? (Score:1)
Low profile? What does that mean, exactly? How many slots does it take up? I am infuriated by all of the marketing hype that describes every single aspect and every single dimension EXCEPT the height of the card. Yeah, length is important. But SO IS THE HEIGHT!! Nearly all of the GPUs nowadays take up more than two slots. But they never, ever, EVER list the dimension in millimeters. Just nonsense like "2.5 slots". What is going on with this?
Re: (Score:2)
The low-profile RTX 4060 card in the article