![]() It's clear this review isn't doing the job for some of you - I can at least try to give a bit more context about my thought process and the realities of recent GPU reviews. The chain of logic on “buy” or “don’t buy” doesn’t hold up to a critical eye.Hey y'all, author here.Ĭaught up on this thread this evening, since I'm working on other things. There’s little guidance for people upgrading from 2-3 generations ago. They don’t give a broad enough overview of the market. There’s nothing particularly thorough or insightful about the reviews. Personally, especially given the recent reviews, I don’t think Ars should spend its resources on GPU reviews. Not everyone will want to buy used, but it’s hard to take a review seriously that doesn’t even consider that part of the market. That market includes many new cards and should also include at least a mention of used ones as viable alternatives. If Ars wants to review video cards, then it should place any prospective card into context in the market. To respond more directly to this top part of your post: Which makes me gag a bit for old man yells at cloud reasons, but current reality is current reality, and ultimately I can't really fault the author for operating within it. ![]() But if none of those are an option, and you just have to get something right now, this is a very solid choice. My personal advice would be one of "buy used", "check out a console", or "forget about gaming until the market is more sane". Nothing you can do about the former if the latter is true you just need direction to the least-worst option. The market being trash is kind of orthogonal to "I need something to play games". Meaning the card isn't bad, the PC gaming market in general is trash when "entry level GPU" is ~$300 and "enthusiast GPU" is ~$1000+. It's only when you look at the name (to compare to last gen 圆0 cards instead of x50 cards) and price inflation that's hit every segment of the GPU market that it becomes a bitter pill. If you need an entry level GPU in July 2023, this hits all of the standard highlights of an Nvidia card from recent years: slightly more expensive than the AMD alternative, about the same performance but with special Nvidia bonuses, and with much better power efficiency. ![]() I saw the 'Ars Approved' seal on the review, which is completely unearned IMO.That bothered me at first too, but on reflection the author's basic argument isn't bad. The 4060 costs a bit more than either card, but it does have the benefit of performing consistently well in all kinds of games and consuming very little power while doing it. Intel's Arc A750 ($250-ish) is surprisingly competitive, too, even in ray-traced games, but older DirectX 11 games like Grand Theft Auto V still run worse on Intel's hardware than newer DirectX 12 and Vulkan games. The best argument against Nvidia here is that the RX 7600 (currently $260 or $270) is usually as fast or faster for a bit less money, at least in games with no ray tracing or upscaling effects turned on-per usual for Radeons, performance does tank with ray-tracing enabled. ![]() The GPU is capable of average frame rates well above 60 fps at 1080p, at least as long as ray tracing isn't enabled, though even at that resolution, you'll need to lean on DLSS and turned-down settings to play at 60 fps in games like Returnal and Cyberpunk 2077. In both the 3DMark tests and actual games, whether they're using ray tracing or not, the 4060 is generally between 15 and 20 percent faster than the 3060, though it usually falls a hair short of matching the 3060 Ti. ![]() In our 1080p tests, the 4060 performs roughly as expected. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |