That (rumored) massive bandwidth reduction will hurt the performance of the 4060Ti, that's for sure, but we'll see how much. It could be a fine card to game at 1080p, but I doubt Nvidia will price it accordingly to that.

And it's also interesting how some games are fine with the console's 16GB but need more for PC. It's a shame, and probably a sign of a not really good port.

Which games need more than 16 GB for settings similar to the PS5 / XBS X settings?

Pretty much seems to be the pattern. They apparently went to MS/Nintendos school of product design where one generation of product is great and the generation after is shat. As GPUs sit on shelves as they did with Turing, it is like a domino affect. People not buying GPUs means retailers not ordering more GPUs from Nvidia which leads to Nvidia not ordering more GPUs from TSMC which leads to TSMC lowering their prices. Thanks to the recession, people will be buying less and less. The key question will be that when the next gen comes out with presumably better price to performance ratio, will the mining boom happen again? Cause that's what turned Ampere/RDNA 2 generation from "hot diggity damn" to "oh hell naw."

The main issue is that MS took too long with Direct Storage for GPUs so for a lot of these games that are coming out will require big pool of ram to put assets onto as that is the next best thing. Granted Forspoken is supposed to have Direct Storage while still requiring 32GB of ram but that game is gonna be horribly optimized on every platform. Even on PS5, that games render resolution is typically around 1080p going down to 720p but in some cases back to to 4k.

I don't even know which PC settings are similar to the ones used for PS5/Xbox. I don't watch the comparison videos that talk about it.

Well, looks like the proximity between the Western New Year and the Lunar New Year has made Steam scale down its new sale. But it's here, nonetheless.

As always, I'd wait for performance reviews rather than looking at spec tables.

I've been surprised lately by how much some of you pay attention to them. It's something I used to do back when I was a kid or young teen and the internet wasn't readily available. Nowadays it's so much easier to find out how something actually runs (hundreds of websites and thousands of YT content makers).

It's more to do with having a discussion point rather than taking them as gospel and ignoring the reviews. In the past, the devs gave vague requirements that showed min and recommended with potato specs. This gen is different where the devs are giving us fairly detailed requirements with interesting patterns.

So it's not like people won't be posting performance numbers as they come out but until then, it is an interesting point of discussion as we start coming into the next generation of games.

Back then you didn't have to wait so long to have the full lineup of CPUs or GPUs, unlike now, when that 4060Ti may not even launch until Computex in June. Also, and because of that, discussing about the latest rumors or confirmed specs is a way to kill some time between releases.

*Edit* My bad, I assumed this was about hardware, not the game specs and how they may perform. I blame the weather, that's giving me headaches.

I don't think saying 6700 XT/2070 Super for 1080p60 at medium and a 6800 XT/3080 for 4K60 at epic is interesting is right, just wildly inaccurate.

If the former is true the latter will barely get to 30 fps at 4K. If the latter is true then the former would likely be >120 fps at the same settings, let alone medium. Not to mention if the 3080 and the 6800 are equivalent here then the 6700 will outperform the 2070 Super by 20-25%. If they aren't, they could have picked up better GPUs to compare at the higher end. So nothing about it makes sense... as usual for those spec sheets.

Edit - maybe I'm being too harsh since the department/employee responsible for these likely have limited time and a limited variety of test configurations. But still, in this case, the original point stands.

Yeah lol. Its such a strange thing to see a company repeat the same mistakes. Its not exactly that long ago that Turing sat on sheves.. and it took a good generation of decently priced and specced GPU's; with Ampere, to get people interested in PC hardware again. But now they're back again with horrible pricing (and sales) to keep profits high as they were during the mining boom and pandemic. When the mining crash already happened and people aren't willing to spend that much money on a graphics card. Particuarly in the upper high end/mid range.

The problem is that they think their customers are stupid. But its the contrary when there's an econonic downturn affecting a lot of countries and people, they are more likely to do research first. And if they see a $500 4060Ti barely beating out a 3070Ti, two years later just ain't going to cut it for a lot of people. DLSS 3.0 or no.

The only recourse I can see is that AMD will price Navi 32/33 cards sensibibly and not slip up.. forcing Nvidia to be more competitive with their pricing. But that's unlikely to happen seeing as what they did with Navi 31 vs AD103/4.

Makes me wonder how they will tackle Blackwell in a couple years time. If AMD does manage to pull a rabbit out of the hat with RDNA 4 (and that's a big if) and start playing around with more GCD's and MCM and actually makes a compelling product. Nvidia has to make drastic changes to their strategies. They can't keep selling GPU's at this rate in any case..