Ryuu96 said:
Fuck is RTX 3060 and RTX 4060? Lmao. And what resolution does my current one offer? And what resolution do those two offer? |
Well no GPU offers a set resolution across all games, it's going to be different for each game, and even within that game, different depending on where you set the rest of your graphics settings, a GPU that can run at 1080p ultra settings with 60 fps will usually be able to run the same game at 1440p with high settings or a mix of medium and high settings for instance.
To give you a general idea of PC GPU performance, the tech site I use for comparing GPU's test each of them in a test suite of 15 different games, 9 of which are rasterization heavy and 6 of which have ray-tracing options (different GPU's have different strengths, AMD GPU's tend to be better in rasterization within the same price range, while Nvidia far outperforms AMD in raytracing since AMD has yet to add dedicated ray tracing cores to their GPU's like Nvidia has). These are some of the GPU's more powerful than your current 1660 Super that should also work on your 600 watt power supply:
Here are the results:
1080p, ultra settings, rasterization games, average framerate results (typical price for a new card currently in parenthesis)
Nvidia
- 1660 Super- 45.3 fps
- 3060- 73 fps ($290)
- 4060- 84.9 fps ($300)
- 4060ti- 102 fps ($400 for 8 GB of GDDR6, $480 for 16 GB)
- 4070- 123 fps ($550)
AMD
- 6600- 67.3 fps ($210)
- 6600 XT- 78 fps ($230)
- 6650 XT- 80 fps ($250)
- 7600- 82.3 fps ($260)
- 7600 XT- 90.5 fps ($340)
Intel
- Arc a580- 65.1 fps ($170)
1080p, ultra settings, ray tracing games, average framerate results
Nvidia
- 1660 Super- Not tested because it's so bad at ray tracing that it's pointless to test
- 3060- 34.1 fps
- 4060- 41.7 fps
- 4060 ti- 53 fps
- 4070- 69.4 fps
AMD
- 6600- 20.7 fps
- 6600 XT- 24.8 fps
- 6650 XT- 25.6 fps
- 7600- 31.3 fps
- 7600 XT- 35.1 fps
Intel
- Arc a580- 32.7 fps
