Tuesday, October 20th 2026
Rumor: NVIDIA RTX 6060 May Be Years Away, and Possibly Slower Than the PS6
Anyone holding out for an affordable next-gen NVIDIA card might have a long wait. Hardware leaker Kepler_L2 claims on NeoGAF that the GeForce RTX 6060 will "launch much later," adding that, based on recent trends, he doubts it will even match the PlayStation 6. He was replying to a forum member who argued the PS6 would compete with the RTX 6060, in the same thread where he claimed the console's RAM and storage alone cost over $680. Kepler didn't give an actual date, and the 2029 figure going around seems to be an extrapolation. Both Kepler and kopite7kimi have placed NVIDIA's Rubin-based RTX 60 series in 2028, and the x60 cards usually trail the flagship by a few months. The RTX 5060 arrived under four months after the RTX 5090, while the RTX 4060 took over eight months to follow the RTX 4090.
With a flagship launch around mid-2028 or later, that could push the RTX 6060 into 2029. That said, the "much later" comment seems to be relative to the PS6, which is reportedly targeting late 2027, so the exact timing is still anyone's guess. Kepler didn't say why, but the ongoing memory shortage looks like the obvious suspect. NVIDIA reportedly postponed its RTX 50 SUPER refresh earlier this year to prioritize AI products that use the same GDDR7 memory, and the company recently admitted that RTX 5090 supply is tight. Of course, NVIDIA hasn't announced the RTX 60 series officially yet, so treat this as a rumor. Anyone looking to buy a new NVIDIA GPU should probably expect the current RTX 50 lineup to stick around for quite a while.
Source:
Kepler_L2 on NeoGAF
With a flagship launch around mid-2028 or later, that could push the RTX 6060 into 2029. That said, the "much later" comment seems to be relative to the PS6, which is reportedly targeting late 2027, so the exact timing is still anyone's guess. Kepler didn't say why, but the ongoing memory shortage looks like the obvious suspect. NVIDIA reportedly postponed its RTX 50 SUPER refresh earlier this year to prioritize AI products that use the same GDDR7 memory, and the company recently admitted that RTX 5090 supply is tight. Of course, NVIDIA hasn't announced the RTX 60 series officially yet, so treat this as a rumor. Anyone looking to buy a new NVIDIA GPU should probably expect the current RTX 50 lineup to stick around for quite a while.
57 Comments on Rumor: NVIDIA RTX 6060 May Be Years Away, and Possibly Slower Than the PS6
Thank you.
Just want to see what you mean when you say "low end" and how much do you believe it is justified to pay for that "low end".
AU/JP/KR/NA/NZ: November 12, 2020
WW: November 19, 2020
If they get more Vram, why would they optimize properly? they have less now and they aren't optimizing and more is going to let them do it?.... If anything the norm will continue (release it and try to patch it later) or slow/stop this pursuit for realistic graphics that will likely hit diminishing returns soon.Well if to the highest bidder they are generating many times over profit, Vs the mid and lower spectrum... it does make business sense to focus most efforts on the highest bidder and not who got you through the years
I heard a rumor from a reliable source that cards have been sent out for testing, of course, this is nothing new, and once that is done, we will see what happens
So, expect 9GB, over a 96-bit bus :p
Nvidia exists because of the add-in card market and when the AI hyperscale market runs out of money (current funding gap is well into trillions, now - all macroeconomic experts predict collapse at some point before 2030 and some as early as Q1 2028) then they will likely come crawling back to the add-in card market. It's not wise to burn bridges you may need to use again.
You think nvidia will "come crawling back"? Like what does that even mean...People will just buy nvidia cards when their price recovers just like they did the past decade.
Sometimes I feel your purpose on these forums is just to argue for the sake or argument, with no regard whatsoever to the point of the thread or the poster's intent.
I know how this post is written and I apologize for that, but honestly, in my opinion, it takes a high degree of naivety for someone to think that the public and the tech press will change the behavior they've adopted toward Nvidia for over 18 years. The moment Nvidia throws a bone to the audience, people will run to buy it and say thank you on top of that. The only case where the public would turn its back on Nvidia is if Intel or AMD offered technologically superior solutions to what Nvidia provides. We saw this, after all, in the case of Intel and AMD. No matter what tricks Intel pulled while it had the upper hand—even tricks that directly harmed the end consumer—people defended her and mocked AMD. The public's attitude only shifted once AMD managed to offer products that, in many people's eyes, were clearly superior, like the X3D chips.
Nvidia has no issue burning all bridges with consumers; she could even price the next RTX 6060 at $999. People will still rush to buy it. The public will only start treating her differently if she falls technologically behind. But how does a company fall behind technologically when in a single quarter she makes as much revenue as everyone else combined makes in half a year?
I know you are going to throw the ball offside but it's an obvious question. If we accept that Nvidia is the big ivil corporation that despises gamers - why are their 2018 gpus on active drive support with access to the latest upscaler and amds even newer gpus aren't? I know I know, Nvidia blocks mfg yadayada. But we've already accepted Nvidia is ivil and hates gamers that's why they blocked mfg. What is amds excuse...? I'm all ears. Convince the crowd that amd doesn't hate gamers even more - which is why we prefer Nvidia. Cause they hate us less.
I am not going to waste my time trying to have a dialogue with a brick wall, because all this time you just keep repeating the same things, ignoring what we are telling you. It's like trying to talk to a wall. You rely on the fact that the reader doesn't know we've already explained these things to you and that you persist in ignoring them. So whatever we tell you, it makes no sense because next time, in some other thread, you will show up and post the exact same pseudo-arguments all over again.
In short, and without continuing this—because it makes zero sense for me to lose any more time with you when you are in the mood for trolling (sometimes you show up serious, but usually you don't)—AMD, for its part, has delivered features through its drivers that Nvidia either delivered later, hasn't delivered at all, or is now delivering via MS. Nvidia, on its end, has also withheld features from owners of previous-generation graphics cards—features that those users actually received through AMD or Intel, or are discovering over the last few months that they could have had all along through the mods that keep popping up constantly, or has announced features that two years later remain unimplemented.
YES, we already established - I agreed with you, nvidia is IVIL and hates gamers. So of course they do all these nasty things. The question is - why is nvidia - who hates gamers and all that offer something to it's user that AMD doesn't? Nvidia doesn't offer MFG cause they are ivil, why doesn't AMD offer upscaling to RDNA 2 users? You never reply, you just throw the ball offside :D
But we've grown accustomed to reading lies from you by now. The question I've put to you—and which you won't answer—is what is your goal here? Why do you choose lies that undeniably damage your own reputation? What could possibly be more important than your image in TPU? Protecting a 6-trillion-dollar company? Or is your aim to undermine the credibility of the TPU forum itself? What is your purpose that is so important that it justifies writing lies?
Go find something else to do. Nobody visits TPU to read lies.
People pull these VRAM requirements out of thin air. There is no reason why VRAM size needs to increase all the time.Technically, there's no reason why a card like RTX 5060 should even need close to 8 GB for gaming, as it can't possibly utilize anything close to that and achieve a reasonable frame rate. Even 6 GB would have been plenty. And there is no reason why a borderline low-end card should need way more VRAM per "fidelity" than a high-end card, it's actually absurd. The only reason some games "needs" it is because of terrible memory management. So if anything we should petition game developers to get their act together, instead of complaining to GPU manufacturers.
Contrary to most, I would prefer if a "RTX 6060" stuck to 8 GB VRAM to keep costs down and availability higher. Most enthusiasts have so much feelings attached to a technical specification they don't even comprehend. VRAM is managed differently across generations, and especially with increasing VRAM costs, we can assume the push for efficiency here will be higher than normal. Imagine if Nvidia released a sub $300 RTX 6060 with only 6 GB with better compression and stellar performance in 1080p and 1440p medium, forum "fools" would still find a way to make that a bad thing.
The RTX 3060 from 5 years ago had a 12GB option, 12GB should be the bare minimum for a card launching in 2029.Modern titles use more than 8GB of VRAM, there isn't any reason why even the x60 tier should be held back by the lack of VRAM, and expecting game devs to fix things is an unrealistic expectation when AAA companies are pushing devs to code games in UE5 slop anyway.
An RTX 6060 being stuck on 8GB of VRAM would keep costs down for Nvidia themselves, but not for consumers, an 8GB 5060 is close to $500, with memory prices expected to climb even higher next year, i would expect an 8GB 6060 to be over $700, partly from memory prices and the rest because Nvidia can and consumers will still buy it.