MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G: Extra efficient and quiet

Ľubomír Samák

1 year ago

Methodology: performance tests

Mid-range graphics cards with Ada Lovelace GPUs are finally here. The intergenerational speed increase is relatively lower with the RTX 4060 Ti, but the power draw has dropped significantly and the overall operating characteristics are pleasing. Especially when it comes to designs similar to the MSI Gaming X Trio with a well oversized cooler. Three fans, power draw under 170W, and gaming performance well above the Radeon RX 6650 XT.

GeForce RTX 4060 Ti are built on the AD106(-350-A1) core, which has less than half the die area of the GPU in the GeForce RTX 3060 Ti (Ampere). The claimed TDP (160W) is also lower compared to the Radeon RX 6650 XT (176W). Like the latter, the RTX 4060 Ti uses only eight PCIe interface lanes. While there are no performance limitations with the latest 4.0 standard, there may be some throttling on older boards with PCIe 3.0 or even PCIe 2.0 (for example, on platforms with Intel Sandy Bridge processors that are still in circulation).

Those graphics cards (RTX 4060 Ti) are, like the GTX 1060 of its time (with 3 and 6 GB), fitted with different memory sizes, with 8 GB and 16 GB of GDDR6. The Gaming X Trio (8G) variant we tested has 8 gigabytes like the RTX 3060 Ti did. Compared to the RTX 3060 (with 12GB), however, this may seem like a downgrade. But for now, we’re not going to ponder how much memory is enough and how much is not enough (that will become apparent in the eventual tests of the RTX 4060 Ti with 16 GB of VRAM), and we’re going to analyze the card we have at our disposal. Traditionally, a complete overview of the parameters can be found in the chart in the second chapter.

MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G in detail

The Gaming X Trio 8G represents the pinnacle of MSI’s RTX 4060 Ti offering. This means that it is a “premium” variant, which will not have the most favorable price-performance ratio, but then again, it will not have the noisiest cooler, on which savings are made on cheaper models.

Three 95 mm diameter axial fans are used to cool the heatsink. Their profile height is 12 mm, so average, but the aerodynamic design is efficient. Firstly because of the proven shape with a more pronounced leading edge curvature, and secondly because of the larger number of blades with relatively small gaps between them. This means that there is relatively little room for the air streams to leak inefficiently through back pressure, which means that the airflow loss due to the heatsink design will not be high. In other words, these fans have a very respectable static pressure within the capabilities of the format.

An upgrade that in turn improves the acoustic properties is the joining of the blade tips in threes. Without this feature, higher vibrations would be generated at the tip of one blade, which would spread further through the graphics card (and create secondary noise) and also be the source of sharper tonal peaks. However, this stiffening eliminates unwanted blade flexibility and results in a more pleasing sound profile, as our spectral analysis demonstrates.

The PCB is short, it makes up roughly half of the total length of the graphics card, making room for a large window in the back. In these places the backplate has a proper hole through which heated air pushed by the fans from below can escape more efficiently. Despite this cutout, the structure is sturdy and does not flex. The circumferential folds of the backplate profile also contribute to the high stiffness.

From the detail of the fins of the heatsink you can notice some semi-arc protrusions, which should also contribute to higher cooling efficiency. These are already in the second generation (2.0) and MSI talks about optimizations with them with a balance between cooling and noise. This may be based on how effective the airflow guided by the finning is with respect to “hotter and cooler” spots, and also what impact these “deflectors” have on the resonant frequencies of sound that are created when the heatsink is being traversed by air.

At approximately 138mm (from the PCI slot to the cover on the opposite side), this is a fairly wide card, but the advantage here is that the power connector no longer increases the demands on the available space. In fact, there is a large cutout in the backplate, in which the power connector disappears and the overall dimensions are increased only by the thickness of the wires. The external power supply, by the way, is implemented by only one 8-pin PCIe cable.

In length, the RTX 4060 Ti is as much as 338mm, which may collide with some cases. Especially in the lower to mid price range, which suits pairing with this class of graphics cards. At 50mm tall, expect PCI Express slots on the motherboard to be blocked.

Overall, the MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G makes a sturdy impression – an aluminum backplate, a solid, well-fitting plastic front cover with a more luxurious finish…

… RGB LED elements are also represented. You can see all that is lighted in the photo below.

The accessories also include a horizontal bracket –- graphics card support. It both takes some load off the PCIe slot (less stress on the contacts, especially during transport, where the kinetic energy of impacts can be devastating) and keeps the card level, which will be appreciated by users who like a nice view through the transparent side panel of the computer case. The weight of the graphics card is 1160 grams.

Please note: The article continues with following chapters.

A mid-range of graphics cards with Nvidia GPU has finally been added to the Ada Lovelace generation. The intergenerational speed increase is relatively lower with the RTX 4060 Ti, but the power draw has dropped significantly and the overall operating characteristics are pleasing. Especially when it comes to designs similar to the MSI Gaming X Trio with a well oversized cooler. Three fans, power draw under 170W, and gaming performance well above the Radeon RX 6650 XT.


Parameters		MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G
		Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G
Architecture		Ada Lovelace
Die		AD106-350-A1
Manufacturing node		4 nm TSMC
Die size		190 mm²
Transistor count		22,9 bn.
Compute units		34
Shaders/CUDA cores		4352
Base Clock		2310 MHz
Game Clock (AMD)		–
Boost Clock		2670 MHz
RT units		34
AI/tensor cores		136
ROPs		48
TMUs		136
L2 Cache		32 MB
Infinity Cache		–
Interface		PCIe 4.0 ×8
Multi-GPU interconnect		–
Memory		8 GB GDDR6
Memory clock (effective)		18.0 GHz
Memory bus		128 bit
Memory bandwidth		288 GB/s
Pixel fillrate		128,2 Gpx/s
Texture fillrate		363.1 Gtx/s
FLOPS (FP32)		22.06 TFLOPS
FLOPS (FP64)		344.8 GFLOPS
FLOPS (FP16)		22.06 TFLOPS
AI/tensor TOPS (INT8)		177 TOPS
AI/tensor FLOPS (FP16)		88 TOPS
TDP		160 W
Power connectors		1× 8-pin
Card lenght		338 mm
Card slots used		52 mm
Shader Model		6.7
DirectX/Feature Level		DX 12 Ultimate (12_2)
OpenGL		4.6
Vulkan		1.3
OpenCL		3.0
CUDA		8.9
Video encoder engine		NVEnc 8
Encoding formats		HEVC, H.264, AV1
Encoding resolution		8K
Video decoder engine		NVDec 5
Decoding formats		HEVC, H.264,VP9, AV1
Decoding resolution		8K
Max. Monitor resolution		7680 × 4320 px
HDMI		1× (2.1)
DisplayPort		3× (1.4a)
USB-C		–
MSRP		519 EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2389" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2389 { ... } #supsystic-table-2389 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2389 tbody tr { ... } */

Gaming tests

The largest sample of tests is from games. This is quite natural given that GeForce and Radeons, i.e. cards primarily intended for gaming use, will mostly be tested.

We chose the test games primarily to ensure the balance between the titles better optimized for the GPU of one manufacturer (AMD) or the other one (Nvidia). But we also took into account the popularity of the titles so that you could find your own results in the charts. Emphasis was also placed on genre diversity. Games such as RTS, FPS, TPS, car racing as well as a flight simulator, traditional RPG and sports games are represented by the most played football game. You can find a list of test games in the library of chapters (9–32), with each game having its own chapter, sometimes even two (chapters) for the best possible clarity, but this has its good reason, which we will share with you in the following text.

Before we start the gaming tests, each graphics card will pass the tests in 3D Mark to warm up to operating temperature. That’s good synthetics to start with.

We’re testing performance in games across three resolutions with an aspect ratio of 16:9 – FHD (1920 × 1080 px), QHD (2560 × 1440 px) and UHD (3840 × 2160 px) and always with the highest graphic settings, which can be set the same on all current GeForce and Radeon graphics cards. We turned off proprietary settings for the objectivity of the conclusions, and the settings with ray-tracing graphics are tested separately, as lower class GPUs do not support them. You will find their results in the complementary chapters. In addition to native ray-tracing, also after deploying Nvidia DLSS (2.0) and AMD FidelityFX CAS.

If the game has a built-in benchmark, we use that one (the only exception is Forza Horizon 4, where due to its instability – it used to crash here and there – we drive on our track), in other cases the measurements take place on the games’ own scenes. From those we capture the times of consecutive frames in tables (CSV) via OCAT, which FLAT interprets into intelligible fps speech. Both of these applications are from the workshop of colleagues from the gpureport.cz magazine. In addition to the average frame rate, we also write the minimum in the graphs. That contributes significantly to the overall gaming experience. For the highest possible accuracy, all measurements are repeated three times and the final results form their average value.

Computational tests

Testing the graphics card comprehensively, even in terms of computing power, is more difficult than drawing conclusions from the gaming environment. Just because such tests are usually associated with expensive software that you don’t just buy for the editorial office. On the other hand, we’ve found ways to bring the available computing performance to you. On the one hand, thanks to well-built benchmarks, there are also some freely available and at the same time relevant applications, and thirdly, we have invested something in the paid ones.

The tests begin with ComputeBench, which computes various simulations (including game graphics). Then we move on to the popular SPECviewperf benchmark (2020), which integrates partial operations from popular 2D and 3D applications, including 3Ds max and SolidWorks. Details on this test package can be found at spec.org. From the same team also comes SPECworkstation 3, where GPU acceleration is in the Caffe and Folding@Home tests. You can also find the results of the LuxMark 3.1 3D render in the graphs, and the remarkable GPGPU theoretical test also includes AIDA64 with FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed measurements.

For obvious reasons, 3D rendering makes the largest portion of the tests. This is also the case, for example, in the Blender practical tests (2.91). In addition to Cycles, we will also test the cards in Eevee and radeon ProRender renderers (let AMD have a related test, as most are optimized for Nvidia cards with proprietary CUDA and OptiX frameworks). Of course, an add-on for V-ray would also be interesting, but at the moment the editorial office can’t afford it, we may manage to get a “press” license in time, though, we’ll see. We want to expand application tests in the future. Definitely with some advanced AI testing (we haven’t come up with a reasonable way yet), including noise reduction (there would be some ideas already, but we haven’t incorporated those due to time constraints).

Graphics cards can also be tested well in photo editing. To get an idea of the performance in the popular Photoshop, we’re using a script in PugetBench, which simulates real work with various filters. Among them are those that use GPU acceleration. A comprehensive benchmark suggesting the performance of raster and vector graphics is then also used in alternative Affinity Photo. In Lightroom, there are remarkable color corrections (Enhance Details) of raw uncompressed photos. We apply these in batches to a 1 GB archive. All of these tasks can be accelerated by both GeForce and Radeon.

From another perspective, there are decryption tests in Hashcat with a selection of AES, MD5, NTLMv2, SHA1, SHA2-256/512 and WPA-EAPOL-PBKDF2 ciphers. Finally, in the OBS and XSplit broadcast applications, we measure how much the game performance will be reduced while recording. It is no longer provided by shaders, but by coders (AMD VCE and Nvidia Nvenc). These tests show how much spare performance each card has for typical online streaming.

There are, of course, more hardware acceleration options, typically for video editing and conversion. However, this is purely in the hands of encoders, which are always the same within one generation of cards from one manufacturer, so there is no point in testing them on every graphics card. It is different across generations and tests of this type will sooner or later appear. Just fine-tuning the metric is left, where the output will always have the same bitrate and pixel match. This is important for objective comparisons, because the encoder of one company/card may be faster in a particular profile with the same settings, but at the expense of the lower quality that another encoder has (but may not have, it’s just an example).

New: As of November 18, 2022, we are testing all graphics cards only in Resizable BAR active mode. There are three reasons why we will not continue with measurements without ReBAR.

The main reason is that new motherboards starting with Intel Z790 and AMD X670(E) chipset models already have it enabled, which wasn’t the case before, and the PCIe settings required ReBAR to be enabled manually. So those who don’t turn it off will be running with ReBAR active, which is a good thing from a gaming perspective where it adds performance. This is perhaps to some extent because Intel graphics cards without ReBAR don’t seem to behave correctly, and there will probably be more and more graphics cards that count on it in the future. You already know the number two reason for ReBAR-only tests.

Finally, it is also true that testing all tests twice (with and without ReBAR) with triple repeatability is extremely time consuming. However, it is still true what we have argued many times – a platform with ReBAR is less stable when it comes to measurement results. Over time, some things may change in the debugging process (from driver to driver) and may not “make sense” when compared to each other. So when you see somewhere that in other tests a slower card outperforms a more powerful one in some particular case, remember these words.

The disadvantage of measurements with active ReBAR is, in short, that all comparison tests may not always be perfectly consistent. And it is possible that there will continue to be cases where ReBAR reduces performance rather than adding to it. These are things to be reckoned with when studying results. This applies not only to our tests, but to the tests of all the others who do not retest all the older models in comparison with every new graphics card tested.

Methodology: how we measure power draw

We have been tuning the method of measuring power draw for quite a long time and we will also be tuning it for some time. But we already have gimmicks that we can work with happily.

To get the exact value of the total power draw of the graphics card, it is necessary to map the internal power draw on the PCI Express slot and the external one on the additional power supply. For the analysis of the PCIe slot, it was necessary to construct an in-between card on which the power draw measurement takes place. Its basis is resistors calibrated to the exact value (0.1 Ω) and according to the amount of their voltage drop we can calculate the current. We then substitute it into the formula for the corresponding value of the output voltage ~ 12 V and ~ 3.3 V. The voltage drop is so low that it doesn’t make the VRM of the graphics card unstable and the output is still more than 12/3.3 V.

We measure power consumption on the card between the graphics card and the PCI Express slot. Rado Kopera took care of the design and implementation (thank you!)

We are also working on a similar device for external power supply. However, significantly higher currents are achieved there, longer cabling and more passages between connectors are necessary, which means that the voltage drop will have to be read on an even smaller resistance of 0.01 Ω, the current state (with 0.1 Ω) is unstable for now. Until we fine-tune it, we will use Prova 15 current clamp for cable measurements, which also measures with good accuracy, they just have a range of up to 30 A. But that is also enough for the OC version of the RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio. If a card is over the range, it is always possible to split the consumption measurement (first into one half and then into the other half of the 12 V conductors).

And why bother with such devices at all when Nvidia has a PCAT power draw analyzer? For complete control over the measurements. While our devices are transparent, the Nvidia’s tool uses the processor that can (but of course does not have to) affect the measurements. After testing the AMD graphics card on the Nvidia’s tool, we probably wouldn’t sleep well.

To read and record measurements, we use a properly calibrated multimeter Keysight U1231A, which exports samples to XLS. From it we obtain the average value and by substituting into the formula with the exact value of the subcircuit output voltages we obtain the data for the graphs.

We will analyze the line graphs with the waveforms for each part of the power supply separately. Although the 3.3 V value is usually negligible, it needs to be monitored. It is difficult to say what exactly this subcircuit powers, but usually the consumption on it is constant and when it changes only with regard to whether a static or dynamic image is rendered. We measure consumption in two sort of demanding games (F1 2020 and Shadow of the Tomb Raider) and one less demanding one (CS:GO) with the highest graphic details preset and UHD resolution (3840 × 2560 px). Then in 3D rendering in Blender using the Cycles renderer on the famous Classroom scene. However, in addition to high-load tests, it’s important to know your web browser consumption (which, in our case, is accelerated Google Chrome), where we also spend a lot of time watching videos or browsing the web. The usual average load of this type is represented by the FishIE Tank (HTML5) website with 20 fish and the web video in our power draw tests is represented by a sample with the VP9 codec, data rate of 17.4 mb/s and 60 fps. In contrast, we also test offline video consumption, in VLC player on a 45 HEVC sample (45.7 mb/s, 50 fps). Finally, we also record the power consumption of the graphics card on the desktop of idle Windows 10 with one or two active UHD@60 Hz monitors.

Noise measurement…

Noise, as well as other operating characteristics, which we will focus on, we’re measuring in the same modes as consumption, so that the individual values overlap nicely. In addition to the level of noise produced, we also record the frequency response of the sound, the course of the GPU clock speed and its temperature.

In this part of the methodology description, we will present something about the method of noise measurement. We use a Reed R8080 sound level meter, which we continuously calibrate with a calibrated Voltcraft SLC-100 digital sound level meter. A small addition to the sound level meter is a parabola-shaped collar, which has two functions. Increases the sensitivity to distinguish the sound produced even at very low speeds. It is thus possible to better compare even very quiet cards with the largest possible ratio difference. Otherwise (without this adjustment) it could simply happen that we measured the same noise level across several graphics cards, even though it would actually be a little different. This parabolic shield also makes sense because, from the outer convex side (from the back), it reflects all the parasitic sounds that everyone who really aims for accuracy of the measurements struggles with during the test. These are various cracks of the body or objects in the room during normal human activity.

To ensure the same conditions when measuring the noise level (and later also the sound), we use acoustic panels with a foam surface around the bench-wall. This is so that the sound is always reflected to the sound level meter sensor in the same way, regardless of the current situation of the objects in the test room. These panels are from three sides (top, right and left) and their purpose is to soundproof the space in which we measure the noise of graphics cards. Soundproofing means preventing different reflections of sound and oscillations of waves between flat walls. Don’t confuse it with sound-absorbing, we’ve had that solved well in the test lab for a long time.

During the measurements, the sound level meter sensor is always placed on a tripod at the same angle and at the same distance (35 cm) from the PCI Express slot in which the graphics card is installed. Of course, it’s always closer to the card itself, depending on its depth. The indicated reference point and the sensor angles are fixed. In addition to the “aerodynamic noise” of the coolers, we also measure the noise level of whining coils. Then we stop the fans for a moment. And for the sake of completeness, it should be added that during sound measurements, we also switch off the power supply fan as well as the CPU cooler fan. Thus, purely the graphics card is always measured without any distortion by other components.

… and the sound frequency response

From the same place, we also measure the frequency of the sound produced. One thing is the noise level (or sound pressure level in decibels) and the other thing is its frequency response.

According to the data on the noise level, you can quickly find out whether the graphics card is quieter or noisier, or where it is on the scale, but it is still a mix of different frequencies. Thus, it does not say whether the sound produced is more booming (with a lower frequency) or squeaking (with a high frequency). The same 35 dBA can be pleasant but also unpleasant for you under certain circumstances – it depends on each individual how they perceive different frequencies. For this reason, we will also measure the frequency response of the sound graphics card in addition to the noise level, via the TrueRTA application. The results will be interpreted in the form of a spectrograph with a resolution of 1/24 octave and for better comparison with other graphics cards we will include the dominant frequency of lower (20–200 Hz), medium (201–2,000 Hz) and higher (2,001–20,000 Hz) sound spectrum into standard bar graphs. For measurements, we’re using a calibrated miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone, which accurately copies the position of the sound level meter, but also has a collar, even with the same focal length.

At the end of this chapter, it should be noted that measurements of noise and frequency response of sound will be performed on most cards only in load tests, as out of load and at lower load (including video decoding) operation is usually passive with fans turned off. On the other hand, we must also be prepared for exceptions with active operation in idle or graphics cards with dual BIOS setup, from which the more powerful one never turns off the fans and they run at least at minimum speed. Finally, as with measuring the noise level in one of the tests, we also record the frequency response of whining coils. But don’t expect any dramatic differences here. It will usually be one frequency, and the goal is rather to detect any potential anomalies. The sound of the whining coils is of course variable, depending on the scene, but we always measure in the same scene (in CS:GO@1080p).

Methodology: temperature tests

We’re also bringing you temperature tests. You are at HWCooling after all. However, in order to make it sensible at all to monitor temperatures on critical components not only of the graphics card, but anything in the computer, it is important to simulate a real computer case environment with healthy air circulation. The overall behavior of the graphics card as such then follows from this. In many cases, an open bench-table is inappropriate and results can be distorted. Therefore, during all, not only heat tests, but also measurement of consumption or course of graphics core frequencies, we use a wind tunnel with equilibrium flow.

Two Noctua NF-S12A fans are at the inlet and the same number is on the exhaust. When testing various system cooling configurations, this proved to be the most effective solution. The fans are always set to 5 V and the speed corresponds to approx. 550 rpm. The stability of the inlet air is properly controlled during the tests, the temperature being between 21 and 21.3 °C at a humidity of ±40 %.

We read the temperature from the internal sensors via GPU-Z. This small, single-purpose application also allows you to record samples from sensors in a table. From the table, it is then easy to create line graphs with waveforms or the average value into bar graphs. We will not use the thermal camera very much here, as most graphics cards have a backplate, which makes it impossible to measure the PCB heating. The key for the heating graphs will be the temperature reading by internal sensors, according to which, after all, the GPU frequency control also takes place. It will always be the heating of the graphics core, and if the sensors are also on VRAM and VRM, we will extract these values into the article as well.

Test setup

Patriot Blackout memory (4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18)

2× Patriot Viper VPN100 SSD (512 GB + 2 TB)

The BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 PSU w/ 1200 W


Test configuration
Processor	AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
CPU Cooler	Noctua NH-U14S@12 V s NT-H2
Motherboard	MSI MEG X570 Ace
Memory (RAM)	Patriot Blackout, 4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18
SSD	2× Patriot Viper VPN100 (512 GB + 2 TB)
PSU	BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 (1200 W)

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-979" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-979 { ... } #supsystic-table-979 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-979 tbody tr { ... } */

Note: Nvidia GeForce 531.93 Game Ready graphics drivers are used at the time of testing, Windows 10 Enterprise OS build is 19043.

3DMark

For the tests we’re using 3DMark Professional and the Night Raid (DirectX12) is suitable for comparing weaker GPUs, for more powerful ones there is Fire Strike (DirectX11) and Time Spy (DirectX12).

Age of Empires II: DE

Test platform benchmark, API DirectX 11; graphics settings preset Ultra; no extra settings.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12; graphics settings preset Ultra High; no extra settings.

Battlefield V

Test platform custom scene (War stories/Under no flag); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; TAA high; no extra settings.

Battlefield V with DXR

Test platform custom scene (War stories/Under no flag); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; TAA high; extra settings DXR.

Note: The game also supports DLSS, but as it’s an older title and there are many tests, we will not address it in standard tests. However, measurements on request are possible if you ask for it.

Borderlands 3

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; TAA; no extra settings.

Control

Test platform custom scene (chapter Polaris); API DirectX 11, graphics settings preset High; no extra settings.

Control with DXR and DLSS

Test platform custom scene (chapter Polaris); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset High; extra settings DXR.

DXR (native)

DXR with DLSS (performance)

Counter-Strike: GO

Test platform benchmark (Dust 2 map tour); API DirectX 9, graphics settings preset High; 4× MSAA; no extra settings.

Cyberpunk 2077

Test platform custom scene (Little China); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; no extra settings.

Cyberpunk 2077 with DLSS

Test platform custom scene (Little China); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; extra settings DLSS (performance).

DLSS (performance)

Cyberpunk 2077 with DXR

Test platform custom scene (Little China); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; extra settings Ray Tracing on (Ultra).

DXR

DXR with DLSS (performance)

DOOM Eternal

Test platform custom scene; API Vulkan, graphics settings preset Ultra Nightmare; no extra settings.

F1 2020

Test platform benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra High; TAA; extra settings Skidmarks blending off*.

*on GeForce graphics cards, the Skidmarks blending option is disabled. This option is missing on AMD graphics cards. However, the overall quality of Skidmarks is otherwise set to High on both GeForce and AMD.

Note: The game also supports DLSS 2.0 and FidelityFX for upscaling and sharpening, but due to the relatively low hardware requirements in the native settings, we will not address them in standard tests. However, measurements on request are possible if you ask for it.

FIFA 21

Test platform custom scene (Autumn/Fall, Overcast, 9pm, Old Trafford); API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; no extra settings.

Forza Horizon 4

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; 2× MSAA; no extra settings.

Mafia: DE

Test platform custom scene (from the Salieri’s Bar parking lot to the elevated railway gate); API DirectX 11, graphics settings preset High; no extra settings.

Metro Exodus

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Extreme; no extra settings.

Metro Exodus with DXR and DLSS

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Ultra; extra settings DXR.

DXR (native)

DXR with DLSS (performance)

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Disclaimer: We do not use the results from this game to calculate the average gaming performance. This is because the performance of the game often changes due to updates, and when this happens, we start building the results database from scratch. To check the consistency of the MFS results, we run a test scene with the MSI RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio before testing each new graphics card.

Test platform custom scene (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00 am) autopilot: from 1000 until hitting the terrain; API DirectX 11, graphics settings preset Ultra; TAA; no extra settings.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan)

Test platform custom scene; API Vulkan, graphics settings preset Favor Quality; no extra settings.

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Dx12)

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Favor Quality; no extra settings.

Why is the result missing for some graphics cards? At some point, both AMD and Nvidia stopped supporting Vulkan for Red Dead Redemption 2. Because of this, it is not possible to test under this API, although it is still in the game’s settings. But don’t turn it on, you won’t be able to run the game afterwards and you’ll need to manually override Vulkan to Dx12 in the system.xml file.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 12, graphics settings preset Highest; TAA; no extra settings.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider with DXR

Testovacia platforma benchmark; API DirectX 12, prednastavený grafický profil Highest; extra nastavenia DXR.

Note: This game also supports DLSS and FidelityFX CAS, but since this is an older title and there are more than enough tests, we will not address this setting in standard tests. However, testing on request is possible if you ask for it.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test platform benchmark; API DirectX 11, graphics settings preset Ultra; 4× AA, no extra settings.

Wasteland 3

Test platform custom scene; API DirectX 11, graphics settings preset Ultra; no extra settings.

Overall gaming performance

We calculate the average performance so that each game has an equal weight on the result. You can find out exactly how we arrive at the result in this article.

Disclaimer: The charts below present averages from games with settings where only the graphics generated by rasterization appear. This selection was originally intended to allow the inclusion of graphics cards without ray-tracing support. However, it is also reasonable to consider speed with ray-tracing graphics as well. Therefore, prospectively, we will incorporate additional sets of charts into the tests, where one will also take into account graphics details with ray tracing and the other will be exclusively for gaming setups under DXR with RT.

Performance per euro

Disclaimer: To calculate the coefficient, we use the suggested prices that the graphics cards had at the time of launch. Thus, given the current situation, the ratios may not always be accurate, on the contrary, they will often be quite inaccurate (not reflecting the current situation), because the market value of older models naturally decreases over time until they eventually stop selling. In order to make the design of these charts sustainable (also in terms of the passage of time), we have decided to always start from an initial price that we no longer change according to later developments in stores.

CompuBench 2.0 (OpenCL)

Test platform benchmark; API OpenCL; no extra settings.

Game Effects

Advanced Compute

High Quality Computer Generated Imagery and Rendering

Computer Vision

SPECviewperf 2020

Test platform benchmark; API OpenGL and DirectX; no extra settings.

SPECworkstation 3

FLOPS, IOPS and memory speed tests

Test platform benchmark; app version 6.32.5600; no extra settings.

LuxMark

Test platform benchmark; API OpenCL; no extra settings.

Blender@Cycles

Test platform render BMW and Classroom; renderer Cycles, 12 tiles; extra settings: OpenCL for Radeon and CUDA for GeForce, the way most people will use it. OpenCL with GeForce is always slow because path tracing does not support GPU acceleration and is calculated by the CPU. Nvidia OptiX is tested separately on supported cards (GeForce RTX) and the results are drawn separately.

We also test Nvidia OptiX on GeForce RTX

Blender@Radeon ProRender

Test platform render BMW and Classroom; renderer Radeon ProRender, 1024 samples. Extra settings are OpenCL for Radeon and CUDA for GeForce. Nvidia OptiX is tested separately on supported graphics cards (GeForce RTX) and the results are drawn separately.

Blender@Eevee

Test platform animation render Ember Forest; renderer Eevee, 350 images; extra settings OpenCL.

Photo editing

Adobe Photoshop: Test platform PugetBench; no extra settings.

Affinity Photo: Test platform built-in benchmark; no extra settings.

Adobe Lightroom: Test platform custom1-gigabyte archive of 42 raw photos (CR2) taken with DSLR; no extra settings.

Broadcasting

OBS Studio and XSplit: Test platform F1 2020 game benchmark; extra settings – enabled encoders AMD VCE/Nvidia Nvenc (AVC/H.264), output resolution 2560 × 1440 px (60 fps), target bitrate 19,700 kbps.

Password cracking

Test platform Hashcat; no extra settings. You can easily try the tests yourself. Just download the binary and enter the cipher you are interested in using in the command line according to the numeric code.

Why are some GeForce graphics cards reporting no results? Nvidia’s newer 5xx.xx game and studio drivers no longer support Hashcat. Although it can be started via the command line and a test for a specific cipher can be entered, but no action, calculation, comes after confirmation. We will investigate the reasons and possible solutions in more detail over time, but without a fix at the graphics driver level, it’s probably not going to happen.

GPU clock speeds

GPU and VRAM temperatures

VRAM temperature

Note: If the measured value is missing for the selected graphics card, it means that it cannot be detected by the internal sensor.

Net GPU power draw

Performance per watt

Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (higher load)

Analysis of 12 V branch power supply (lower load)

Analysis of 3,3 V branch power supply

Noise level

Frequency response of sound

Measurements are performed in the TrueRTA application, which records sound in a range of 240 frequencies in the recorded range of 20–20,000 Hz. For the possibility of comparison across articles, we export the dominant frequency from the low (20–200 Hz), medium (201–2,000 Hz) and high (2,001–20,000 Hz) range to standard bar graphs.

However, for an even more detailed analysis of the sound expression, it is important to perceive the overall shape of the graph and the intensity of all frequencies/tones. If you don’t understand something in the graphs or tables below, you’ll find the answers to all your questions in this article. This explains how to read the measured data below correctly.

The microphone we use to analyze the sound of coolers and coils


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in F1 2020@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-69,4	1045,7	-62,1	5270,0	-83,9
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-75,1	213,6	-70,9	6450,8	-82,4
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		97,9	-77,0	1107,9	-74,1	5747,0	-81,8
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		71,3	-77,2	1076,3	-69,3	11830,8	-75,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-78,8	1107,9	-78,6	2031,9	-84,8
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		123,4	-81,2	1107,9	-80,0	18245,6	-83,7
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-83,3	1107,9	-72,4	7240,8	-82,5
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		184,9	-82,3	1107,9	-71,4	6834,4	-82,2
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-71,8	1356,1	-72,7	6088,7	-80,9
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,8	219,8	-74,5	6088,7	-81,0
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		50,4	-77,0	1076,3	-56,5	2031,9	-69,4
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		50,4	-75,9	1076,3	-56,7	2031,9	-69,6
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-62,4	1107,9	-56,6	11166,8	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-61,9	1107,9	-55,6	5747,0	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1076,3	-71,2	7034,6	-76,5
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,2	1076,3	-73,5	7034,6	-76,5
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-70,6	1107,9	-82,8	7034,6	-83,7
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,6	213,6	-64,3	2031,9	-74,2
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,3	1076,3	-76,0	4561,4	-81,2
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,9	1076,3	-79,7	6267,2	-85,1
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,0	1076,3	-66,5	9665,3	-81,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,8	1107,9	-67,4	2091,4	-75,3
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-76,0	1107,9	-77,9	7034,6	-74,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,6	1107,9	-74,7	10848,9	-76,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	1107,9	-74,7	10848,9	-76,5

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2316" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2316 { ... } #supsystic-table-2316 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2316 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in SOTTR@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		195,8	-72,7	1045,7	-64,7	8365,6	-83,1
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-74,4	213,6	-70,8	5915,4	-79,7
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-77,9	1076,3	-77,9	5583,4	-82,2
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		190,3	-78,4	1045,7	-74,4	11830,8	-75,3
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-78,4	1140,4	-78,5	2031,9	-84,7
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		138,5	-78,3	1107,9	-78,4	2031,9	-84,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-80,1	1107,9	-76,5	6834,4	-84,3
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		47,6	-84,3	1107,9	-75,9	6834,4	-82,8
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-68,8	1356,1	-75,7	6088,7	-82,6
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-69,5	1356,1	-74,8	5915,4	-83,1
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		44,9	-73,0	1045,7	-50,3	2031,9	-60,5
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		41,8	-72,6	1076,3	-51,4	2031,9	-60,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-63,1	1140,4	-57,9	5747,0	-74,7
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	134,5	-61,7	1107,9	-58,6	5747,0	-74,2
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,9	1140,4	-75,4	5915,4	-77,2
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,1	1107,9	-75,2	5915,4	-76,5
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-70,8	1076,3	-83,6	7034,6	-81,9
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,9	213,6	-64,5	2031,9	-73,8
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-74,5	213,6	-71,3	4561,4	-79,3
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	213,6	-72,3	6267,2	-84,9
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,8	1140,4	-66,1	9948,5	-81,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,6	1140,4	-67,8	9665,3	-80,6
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-75,4	1076,3	-72,3	7240,8	-74,2
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1107,9	-73,9	10848,9	-76,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,2	1107,9	-75,3	10848,9	-75,4

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2317" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2317 { ... } #supsystic-table-2317 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2317 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in CS:GO@2160p	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [-dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [-dBu]
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		100,8	-73,7	1045,7	-73,3	5747,0	-85,8
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	73,7	213,6	-71,4	5747,0	-76,3
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-77,9	207,5	-81,6	4305,4	-83,5
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-79,0	1076,3	-72,2	11830,8	-76,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		138,5	-79,8	1107,9	-77,6	2031,9	-83,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		123,4	-81,0	1107,9	-77,8	2031,9	-83,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-79,6	1107,9	-74,2	7240,8	-80,8
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		49,0	-84,3	1107,9	-80,0	6834,4	-80,2
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-68,7	1356,1	-74,7	6088,7	-80,8
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-69,3	1356,1	-75,1	6088,7	-79,2
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		47,6	-67,1	1045,7	-49,6	2031,9	-60,1
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		47,6	-70,3	1140,4	-50,8	2031,9	-60,2
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	138,5	-64,1	1107,9	-60,1	8610,8	-70,9
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	134,5	-71,6	1107,9	-66,4	8365,6	-72,1
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-72,6	1173,8	-74,9	5915,4	-74,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-75,0	1107,9	-73,8	5747,0	-74,2
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,4	1107,9	-83,1	6267,2	-82,5
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,6	213,6	-64,8	2031,9	-73,8
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-75,7	213,6	-73,4	4695,1	-77,6
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		106,8	-75,7	213,6	-73,4	6267,2	-82,7
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,2	1107,9	-66,2	9948,5	-77,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-71,1	1076,3	-77,3	9665,3	-77,7
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-74,2	1076,3	-70,9	7240,8	-74,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,0	1107,9	-74,3	7671,3	-72,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,3	1107,9	-73,7	10848,9	-72,5

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2318" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2318 { ... } #supsystic-table-2318 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2318 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card	Dominant sound freq. and noise level in Blender (Cycles), Classroom	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
	Low range		Mid range		High range
	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on	195,8	-73,7	1045,7	-69,6	16731,3	-87,4
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-73,8	207,5	-74,1	7034,6	-85,2
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on	100,8	-77,8	207,5	-82,3	5747,0	-89,5
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on	100,8	-80,3	1140,4	-86,7	11830,8	-89,4
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off	123,4	-79,3	213,6	-81,4	18245,6	-85,5
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on	123,4	-79,5	213,6	-81,5	18245,6	-85,6
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on	50,4	-77,9	1107,9	-83,5	7240,8	-87,3
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off	50,4	-79,1	1107,9	-83,9	7240,8	-87,5
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on	100,8	-70,1	1356,1	-73,4	5583,4	-86,1
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off	100,8	-69,8	1356,1	-73,7	5915,4	-86,0
Asus GT 1030 SL 2G BRK, ReBAR off	50,397	-71,7	1107,9	-94,9	19330,5	-90,5
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on	50,4	-76,4	1107,9	-57,9	2031,9	-69,7
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off	50,4	-78,7	1076,3	-60,9	5424,5	-74,0
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	116,5	-65,0	1107,9	-68,5	5120,0	-77,3
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	116,5	-65,1	1107,9	-68,4	5120,0	-77,1
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on	100,8	-72,6	1173,8	-86,6	5915,4	-82,4
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off	100,8	-75,8	1076,3	-87,2	5915,4	-82,1
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-70,4	987,0	-89,5	6450,8	-89,0
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off	100,8	-72,6	213,6	-70,0	2031,9	-79,1
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,2	1076,3	-85,3	5915,4	-92,0
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,2	1076,3	-85,3	18245,6	-90,8
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on	100,8	-71,9	987,0	-89,2	7452,9	-88,3
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off	100,8	-71,1	987,0	-89,0	7452,9	-88,2
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off	106,8	-81,5	1660,0	-80,6	6834,4	-78,0
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on	97,9	-79,8	1208,2	-89,6	7671,3	-85,2
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off	100,8	-73,0	1243,6	-95,2	7671,3	-85,0

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2319" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2319 { ... } #supsystic-table-2319 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2319 tbody tr { ... } */


Graphics card		Dominant sound freq. and noise level in CS:GO@1080p (coils only*)	NF-F12 PWM		NF-A15 PWM
		Low range		Mid range		High range
		Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]	Frequency [Hz]	Noise level [dBu]
Gigabyte RTX 4090 Gaming OC 24G (OC), ReBAR on		100,8	-74,1	1317,5	-82,3	5747,0	-85,8
Sapphire RX 7900 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,2	1076,3	-81,5	5747,0	-76,3
MSI RTX 4070 Ti Suprim X 12G (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-78,0	987,0	-78,6	5583,4	-84,3
MSI RTX 4080 16GB Suprim X (G), ReBAR on		100,8	-80,5	1140,4	-71,8	11830,8	-74,9
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR off		50,4	-83,6	1317,5	-83,0	7896,1	-83,9
MSI RTX 3050 Ventus 2X 8G OC, ReBAR on		50,4	-77,7	1317,5	-87,3	10848,9	-84,5
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		50,4	-81,8	1045,7	-84,2	2091,4	-77,7
Sapphire RX 6650 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		50,4	-83,3	1974,0	-90,0	7034,6	-82,4
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR on		100,8	-72,0	1107,9	-83,7	2215,8	-79,6
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse, ReBAR off		100,8	-68,4	1917,8	-88,7	6450,8	-81,4
Asus GT 1030 SL 2G BRK, ReBAR off		50,4	-71,1	1107,9	-91,7	12534,3	-89,8
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR on		50,4	-80,6	1660,0	-80,3	7896,1	-80,2
Aorus RTX 3080 Xtreme 10G (OC), ReBAR off		50,4	-78,8	1660,0	-82,6	7671,3	-80,4
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR on	100,8	-74,9	739,4	-67,9	5915,4	-78,5
Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE (P), ReBAR off	50,4	-81,4	739,4	-70,2	8610,8	-73,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR on		100,8	-74,6	987,0	-84,8	5747,0	-69,6
Sapphire RX 6700 XT Nitro+ (P), ReBAR off		100,8	-74,7	1395,9	-88,4	5747,0	-70,3
MSI RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,0	1974,0	-88,1	6267,2	-83,6
Gigabyte RTX 3060 Eagle OC 12G, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,6	1974,0	-90,2	6088,7	-83,1
MSI RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		50,4	-76,1	987,0	-84,8	5915,4	-83,3
MSI RTX 3070 Gaming X Trio, ReBAR off		100,8	-74,7	1317,5	-81,4	6088,7	-84,6
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR on		100,8	-71,8	987,0	-87,7	7452,9	-80,4
AMD Radeon RX 6800, ReBAR off		100,8	-72,0	1660,0	-90,4	8863,1	-84,5
TUF RTX 3080 O10G Gaming, ReBAR off		100,8	-75,6	1140,4	-81,7	9948,5	-78,7
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR on		100,8	-73,6	1660,0	-79,8	7452,9	-74,0
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT, ReBAR off		100,8	-73,3	1660,0	-83,3	7452,9	-76,4

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2320" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2320 { ... } #supsystic-table-2320 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2320 tbody tr { ... } */

*With the Sapphire RX 6900 XT Toxic LE, as with the only tested graphics card, the spectral analysis also includes the sound of the water pump.

Conclusion

Significantly more than the speed increase, the RTX 4060 Ti comes with an improvement in power efficiency. If this isn’t a parameter you’re interested in, you might want to hold off on replacing your current graphics card in this class. At FHD (1080p) resolution, the RTX 4060 Ti’s gaming performance without ray-tracing is on average 13% higher compared to the RTX 3060 Ti, and at QHD (1440p) resolution just 7% higher. With RT it’s a percentage point or two more, but more interesting is the drop in power draw.

Compared to the RTX 3060 Ti, the RTX 4060 Ti has 70–90 W less power draw depending on the load. Compared to the 15–20% slower RX 6650 XT the latest GeForce also draws at least 10% less power. This increase in efficiency is then clearly visible in the graphs illustrating the gaming performance per watt ratio, where the RTX 4060 Ti, outside of UHD (2160p) resolution, leads by a wide margin. In Ultra HD, this graphic loses the lead due to a significant drop in speed, the 8-gigabyte RTX 4060 Ti isn’t well suited for such high resolutions. However, the lower QHD resolution could already be considered optimal, unless you own a high-speed monitor and don’t shy away from DLSS or FSR in titles with higher hardware requirements. DLSS 3 is also supported here, as it is with the entire RTX 4000 series of graphics cards.

We can also reach for monitors with a higher refresh rate, in up to Full HD resolution. The RTX 4060 Ti’s framerate is often triple digits in this environment and especially in simple, typically e-sports games. So we can conclude that this is a very efficient graphics card suitable for lower to medium resolutions, which also has a relatively attractive price/performance ratio. GeForce RTX 3060 Ti in a qualitatively comparable design are not that much cheaper.

Variant The Gaming X Trio has an extremely quiet cooler, although we’ve tested quieter, higher power draw cards from MSI (such as the RTX 3060 Ti Gaming X Trio). This is due to coils that are loud above the aerodynamic frequencies of sound. Still, it still can’t be said that the coils are noisy, but neither can it be said that you can easily ignore them. Especially when their sound is sharper, around 5.4 kHz, with less of the really high frequencies. In this respect, the design of a graphics card in this performance class can certainly be better. But at the same time, this is the only thing that can be criticised about the RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio in terms of design features.

Then there are the larger dimensions and thus worse compatibility with smaller cases, but these are justified by the super-low temperatures given the capabilities of the graphics core’s TIM.

GPU clock speeds are high, about 240–300 MHz above what Nvidia quotes for GPU core boost on the reference model and plus 105–165 MHz compared to MSI’s parameters. Of course, GPU clock speed is also dependent on the GPU temperature, and the results are also determined by, for example, the effectiveness of the system cooling.

Overall, the RTX 4060 Ti clearly outperforms the older mid-range models, although Nvidia has placed more emphasis on increasing efficiency than on increasing speed. MSI has done well with the tested Gaming X Trio 8G model, the negatives are minimal and mostly we have to praise. Even when it comes to the key details around the cooler, the benefits of which we discussed in the introduction of the analysis.

English translation and edit by Jozef Dudáš


MSI RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X Trio 8G
+ High performance (also suitable for 1440p/QHD gaming)
+ Very attractive efficiency or gaming/computing performance per unit of power draw
+ Good price/performance ratio
+ Exclusive support for DLSS (3), CUDA and OptiX
+ In the context of other (cheaper) RTX 4060 Tis, very high GPU clock speeds
+ AV1 encoding support
+ PCI Express slot bracket/support included
+ Impressive RGB LED lighting
+ Extremely effective Tri Frozr 3S cooler
- Relatively small speed increase across generations
- Overall larger size and poorer compatibility with cases
- DisplayPort version 1.4a only (applies to all GeForce Ada Lovelace graphics cards)
Suggested retail price: 519 EUR

/* Here you can add custom CSS for the current table */ /* Lean more about CSS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascading_Style_Sheets */ /* To prevent the use of styles to other tables use "#supsystic-table-2390" as a base selector for example: #supsystic-table-2390 { ... } #supsystic-table-2390 tbody { ... } #supsystic-table-2390 tbody tr { ... } */

For cooperation in providing the tested hardware, we would like to give special thanks to the Datacomp e-shop

Continue: Methodology: how we measure power draw