5060 Ti 8GB DOA

[JustBenching]

Apples to oranges, these are not the same.
It shouldn't be ok to need to drop settings to low for a game to run or not crash with a new $400 GPU. RT is a feature and most games will still run without it.

Most games won't run without ultra textures?


I agree, it's not the same. A 1400$ card having to turn off RT cause it gets single digit fps is much worse than a 389$ card having to drop textures.

 

[Hecate91]

That is not what one has to do on a 5060ti 8GB. If you had actually used one, you would know that. If one can play certain games on modest, but not the lowest settings, on a 4060 8GB, then one does not have to run those same games on lower setting for a better card. Simple logic.

Have you used one then? Or are you just ignoring the benchmark results people have already posted? The fact is some games will crash or are unplayable now, compared to the 16gb card. The amount of games which will become unplayable will only get worse as devs optimize for cards with more VRAM.
Simple facts and logic.

As has been said MANY times before, all tech prices are out of whack currently! Prices are not the issue because they're all in flux and on the raise, stop bringing it up as it is not a valid point of debate.

Prices of tech in general doesn't excuse one of the most valuable companies in the world to be price gouging their customers. Stop defending them over it as a valid point of debate.

 

[JustBenching]

This - by the way - is a direct quote from the devs of DOOM


Gamers on RTX 50 Series with 8GB GPUs can enjoy DOOM: The Dark Ages at Ultra settings with high frame rates by setting "Texture Pool Size" to 1536 with minimal impact to image quality.


And according to HUB's review, the visual difference between extreme and low is extremely hard to notice.

Now people that actually think you have to drop settings to LOW on a 5060ti - apparently have not played a single game in their life. I don't even need to drop to LOW on a 6700S, a laptop 100w GPU that has like half the performance (probably less) compared to the 5060ti. And im playing on 2560x1600p! But yeah, a 5060ti definitely has to drop to low

 

[lexluthermiester]

Have you used one then?

Not yet. But I have used a 4060 8GB non-ti and despite the whining and complaining about THAT card, it is a surprisingly good performer. Logically, if a 4060 8gb non-ti can do 1080p and 1440p on mostly high settings or medium to high with RT on, then a 5060ti 8GB will have no issues whatsoever, as shown in reviews from creditable sources.

Prices of tech in general doesn't excuse one of the most valuable companies in the world to be price gouging their customers. Stop defending them over it as a valid point of debate.

I'm not defending it. I'm simply accepting the reality that there is nothing WE can do about it except voting with our wallets. Complaining and bemoaning the problem will not make it go away.

And according to HUB's review, the visual difference between extreme and low is extremely hard to notice.

To be fair, there is a difference.

DOOM: The Dark Ages Performance Benchmark Review - 40 GPUs Tested

DOOM: The Dark Ages is coming soon, offering an amazing first-person shooter experience with fantastic graphics. The game introduces the brand-new id Tech 8 engine, which improves support for ray-tracing. In our performance review, we examine its graphical fidelity, VRAM usage, and how well it...

www.techpowerup.com

As shown with those comparisons, the differences are noticeable, but it's not something that is so dramatic that it would render the game unplayable.
Additionally if we look at the performance numbers;

DOOM: The Dark Ages Performance Benchmark Review - 40 GPUs Tested

DOOM: The Dark Ages is coming soon, offering an amazing first-person shooter experience with fantastic graphics. The game introduces the brand-new id Tech 8 engine, which improves support for ray-tracing. In our performance review, we examine its graphical fidelity, VRAM usage, and how well it...

www.techpowerup.com

The 5060ti 8GB actually gets a bit better performance than the 5060ti 16GB with that game on Ultra settings.

So if the 5060ti 8GB is DOA, then by the same measure, so is the 16GB version of same.

 

[JustBenching]

Not yet. But I have used a 4060 8GB non-ti and despite the whining and complaining about THAT card, it is a surprisingly good performer. Logically, if a 4060 8gb non-ti can do 1080p and 1440p on mostly high settings or medium to high with RT on, then a 506ti 8GB will have no issues.

To be fair, there is a difference.

DOOM: The Dark Ages Performance Benchmark Review - 40 GPUs Tested

DOOM: The Dark Ages is coming soon, offering an amazing first-person shooter experience with fantastic graphics. The game introduces the brand-new id Tech 8 engine, which improves support for ray-tracing. In our performance review, we examine its graphical fidelity, VRAM usage, and how well it...

www.techpowerup.com

As shown with those comparisons, the differences are noticeable, but it's not something that is so dramatic that it would render the game unplayable.
Additionally if we look at the performance numbers;

DOOM: The Dark Ages Performance Benchmark Review - 40 GPUs Tested

DOOM: The Dark Ages is coming soon, offering an amazing first-person shooter experience with fantastic graphics. The game introduces the brand-new id Tech 8 engine, which improves support for ray-tracing. In our performance review, we examine its graphical fidelity, VRAM usage, and how well it...

www.techpowerup.com

The 5060ti 8GB actually gets a bit better performance than the 5060ti 16GB with that game on Ultra settings.

So if the 5060ti 8GB is DOA, then by the same measure, so is the 16GB version of same.

I haven't checked, I just looked at hub's review. He repeats, multiple times that the game looks extremely identical in both presets. Even in the screenshots from TPU, oh well, it's just a bit of AA missing, some tesellations and reflections (which im sure a 5060ti is capable of enabling all of that). Other than that, they look very similar.

Yeah, according to those numbers, if the 5060ti - 7700x (more expensive currently) has kissed us goodbye, lol.

 

[Rigg]

A 1400$ card having to turn off RT cause it gets single digit fps is much worse than a 389$ card having to drop textures.

What is the $1400 card you're referring to?

 

[lexluthermiester]

He repeats, multiple times that the game looks extremely identical in both presets.

On that point, Steve is right, Low VS Ultra the visuals look surprisingly similar. This implies a well optimized game engine.

Even in the screenshots from TPU, oh well, it's just a bit of AA missing, some tesellations and reflections (which im sure a 5060ti is capable of enabling all of that). Other than that, they look very similar.

Exactly.

Yeah, according to those numbers, if the 5060ti - 7700x (more expensive currently) has kissed us goodbye, lol.

Nah. Keep in mind, W1z was testing on Ultra and both of those cards got above 70FPS at 1080p. That is still a very good performance. At 1440p, just below 60. Turn some settings down a bit, which won't hurt the visuals, and the performance goes right back up. Both of those cards are still a solid value.

 

[JustBenching]

What is the $1400 card you're referring to?

The "super" or whatever it was called 6950xt sapphire model was 1300$. But even the regular 6950xt was 1.1k msrp. Still couldn't max out games that were 3 years old at the time of it's release (eg. control rt).

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The A2000 is an insane card when thinking of the performance it has without a power connector.

Even my 3060 6GB does way better than I thought it would. But it was priced appropriately at $140 open box from Best Buy U.S.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I Never thought I'd see the day where people arguing about two terrible products with horrible generational improvements this gpu is bad regardless of what vram it comes equipped with.

It's one saving grace is it was released into a market where gpus from top to bottom are pretty terrible in price to performance so it doesn't really matter.

$400 ish usd is a lot of money to spend on an 8GB gpu regardless this should have been a 12GB product at the 399 price point but Nvidia knows people wont upgrade next generation or jump a tier if they make their entry level cards too appealing.... Hats off to them it's got them to 90% marketshare while their competitors just copy them but slightly worse.....

Us gamers are just suckas who hate progress apparently.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's one saving grace is it was released into a market where gpus from top to bottom are pretty terrible in price to performance so it doesn't really matter.

Exactly. Even the used market sucks because everyone is being greedy aholes.

 

[josge]

8 gigs are pretty okay, i've played a lot of the recent AAA titles with reasonable settings in my 4060 without any mayor issue than just dropping the texture pool size down to medium in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (with everything else set to high/ultra), but idk, 400$ for an 8gb is kinda sad, at least in my opinion. I don't think is DOA, but it's not a good product either.

 

[Chrispy_]

I Never thought I'd see the day where people arguing about two terrible products with horrible generational improvements this gpu is bad regardless of what vram it comes equipped with.

It's one saving grace is it was released into a market where gpus from top to bottom are pretty terrible in price to performance so it doesn't really matter.

$400 ish usd is a lot of money to spend on an 8GB gpu regardless this should have been a 12GB product at the 399 price point but Nvidia knows people wont upgrade next generation or jump a tier if they make their entry level cards too appealing.... Hats off to them it's got them to 90% marketshare while their competitors just copy them but slightly worse.....

Us gamers are just suckas who hate progress apparently.

I don't hate the 5060Ti 16GB.

Outside of the US, it's been available for MSRP and the biggest shortcoming of its predecessor was VRAM bandwidth. GDDR7 basically solves that problem so it's a $430 GPU that performs okay in just about any situation. A midrange GPU that doesn't cost silly money and has no real drawbacks or shortcomings is actually an outlier in the GPU market these last few years.

GPU pricing and performance/$ has been pretty horrible for a while now, and the 5060Ti 16GB doesn't escape that curse - but relative to everything else in the landscape since about 2022, I feel like the 5060Ti 16GB is in a good place. A single 12GB SKU for the 5060Ti would have shut everyone up and prevented 17 pages of arguing, but we don't have that. This 8GB vs 16GB split has opened a real can of worms because the two cards are priced so similarly yet one is significantly harmed by a lack of VRAM when you try to push it to higher settings on a 1440p monitor, while the other runs just fine and seems to have both the shader performance and VRAM to provide an excellent experience.

If the 8GB variant was significantly cheaper, this thread would have died down on page 2, but the issue is that Nvidia are asking so much money for a card that really isn't equal to the 16GB variant.

 

[Rigg]

The "super" or whatever it was called 6950xt sapphire model was 1300$. But even the regular 6950xt was 1.1k msrp. Still couldn't max out games that were 3 years old at the time of it's release (eg. control rt).

You're cherry picking a price example at best and being dishonest at worst. You're also leaving out any context of what the GPU market looked like at the time. Do I need to remind you that the 6950 XT was competing in raster performance (slightly better at 1080p slightly worse at 2160P) with the 3090 TI and it's $2000 MSRP? The 3090 Ti also had OC cards that were well above MSRP. The 6950XT is a 6900XT with slightly faster memory and a bigger power budget out of the box. The street price on most of the Navi 21 cards was well below MSRP within a month of the 6950 XT being released.

I know this because I had an MSI AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Gaming X Trio reserved at Micro Center for $685. This was a month after the 6950 XT came out. I let that reservation expire so it must not even have been that amazing of a deal at the time. I eventually bought an open box Asus Tuf OC 6900 XT for $600 6 months later. Even factoring in the competition at the time, neither N21 card had a good MSRP. Neither sold very well until they were discounted below MSRP.

The 3090 Ti is 55% faster than the 6950 XT at 1080p and 60% faster at 1440P in Control RT according to @W1zzard 's 6950 XT review. Performance is below 60 FPS on the 6950 XT at 1440P and both cards at 2160P. So yes, the 6950 XT RT performance clearly isn't great compared to the 3090 Ti it was competing with. Considering it matched it in raster performance and cost half as much I think that is 100% acceptable. I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with the ($50 lower MSRP) 5060 Ti 8 GB shitting itself on settings that are above 60 FPS on the 16 GB version though.

 

[Chrispy_]

8 gigs are pretty okay, i've played a lot of the recent AAA titles with reasonable settings in my 4060 without any mayor issue than just dropping the texture pool size down to medium in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (with everything else set to high/ultra), but idk, 400$ for an 8gb is kinda sad, at least in my opinion. I don't think is DOA, but it's not a good product either.

"Dead on arrival" is hyperbole. "Doomed to fail" is more accurate. All GPUs are doomed to fail eventually, but it's going to happen depressingly soon for 8GB cards, the same way it did for 4GB cards a while back.

 

[JustBenching]

You're cherry picking a price example at best and being dishonest at worst. You're also leaving out any context of what the GPU market looked like at the time. Do I need to remind you that the 6950 XT was competing in raster performance (slightly better at 1080p slightly worse at 2160P) with the 3090 TI and it's $2000 MSRP? The 3090 Ti also had OC cards that were well above MSRP. The 6950XT is a 6900XT with slightly faster memory and a bigger power budget out of the box. The street price on most of the Navi 21 cards was well below MSRP within a month of the 6950 XT being released.

I know this because I had an MSI AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT Gaming X Trio reserved at Micro Center for $685. This was a month after the 6950 XT came out. I let that reservation expire so it must not even have been that amazing of a deal at the time. I eventually bought an open box Asus Tuf OC 6900 XT for $600 6 months later. Even factoring in the competition at the time, neither N21 card had a good MSRP. Neither sold very well until they were discounted below MSRP.

The 3090 Ti is 55% faster than the 6950 XT at 1080p and 60% faster at 1440P in Control RT according to @W1zzard 's 6950 XT review. Performance is below 60 FPS on the 6950 XT at 1440P and both cards at 2160P. So yes, the 6950 XT RT performance clearly isn't great compared to the 3090 Ti it was competing with. Considering it matched it in raster performance and cost half as much I think that is 100% acceptable. I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with the ($50 lower MSRP) 5060 Ti 8 GB shitting itself on settings that are above 60 FPS on the 16 GB version though.

The market conditions are irrelevant cause I 8sed msrps. The actual price for the card at the time was 1600$ (alternate de).

Everything else you are saying is completely irrelevant. I'm not comparing the card, I'm saying thay a 1.3k msrp card had to drop settings on 3 year old games and it's fine (evident by the fact that you are defending said card) , but a 399$ gpu having to drop settings? No, that's where we draw the line!!

8 gigs are pretty okay, i've played a lot of the recent AAA titles with reasonable settings in my 4060 without any mayor issue than just dropping the texture pool size down to medium in Indiana Jones and the Great Circle (with everything else set to high/ultra), but idk, 400$ for an 8gb is kinda sad, at least in my opinion. I don't think is DOA, but it's not a good product either.

It's not a good product for sure, but that's not just because of vram. The 16gb version isn't a good product either. The gen on gen improvements are lacking.

 

[Chrispy_]

The 3090 Ti is 55% faster than the 6950 XT at 1080p and 60% faster at 1440P in Control RT according to @W1zzard 's 6950 XT review. Performance is below 60 FPS on the 6950 XT at 1440P and both cards at 2160P. So yes, the 6950 XT RT performance clearly isn't great compared to the 3090 Ti it was competing with. Considering it matched it in raster performance and cost half as much I think that is 100% acceptable. I'm not really sure what any of this has to do with the ($50 lower MSRP) 5060 Ti 8 GB shitting itself on settings that are above 60 FPS on the 16 GB version though.

I had a 3090 for a while. My low opinion of RT in general was in part a result of witnessing how poorly the 3090 ran RT titles that were aimed at the 20-series. Noisy shadows that crawled around. Blurry, laggy reflections that took several frames to stabilise, framerates that were significantly less than half what the non-RT framerates were - all just to get different lighting and shadows that didn't necessarily appear to be an upgrade. CP2077 on a 3090 was disappointing, and in 2022 it was arguably Nvidia's RT poster-child. I ran it at 1440p with RT off to cap at the 165Hz refresh of my display at the time. I could enable RT reflections at >100fps if I turned on some DLSS, but this is before the days of DLSS4 or Ray Reconstruction, so even that wasn't a great experience.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I don't hate the 5060Ti 16GB.

Outside of the US, it's been available for MSRP and the biggest shortcoming of its predecessor was VRAM bandwidth. GDDR7 basically solves that problem so it's a $430 GPU that performs okay in just about any situation. A midrange GPU that doesn't cost silly money and has no real drawbacks or shortcomings is actually an outlier in the GPU market these last few years.

GPU pricing and performance/$ has been pretty horrible for a while now, and the 5060Ti 16GB doesn't escape that curse - but relative to everything else in the landscape since about 2022, I feel like the 5060Ti 16GB is in a good place. A single 12GB SKU for the 5060Ti would have shut everyone up and prevented 17 pages of arguing, but we don't have that. This 8GB vs 16GB split has opened a real can of worms because the two cards are priced so similarly yet one is significantly harmed by a lack of VRAM when you try to push it to higher settings on a 1440p monitor, while the other runs just fine and seems to have both the shader performance and VRAM to provide an excellent experience.

If the 8GB variant was significantly cheaper, this thread would have died down on page 2, but the issue is that Nvidia are asking so much money for a card that really isn't equal to the 16GB variant.

I dont like how little things have improved since the 3060ti which was solid enough but launched into a bad circumstance and we've had sub 250 usd 8GB gpu for like 9 years now the lack of progress on both fronts is what sucks at $299 i don't care personally that's the new $200 and $400 is the new $300 but still. I don't even blame Nvidia why put any more effort into the sub $500 usd market when people fall over themselves to buy this trash. I think consumers are educating themselves on the downsides of purchasing a almost 400 usd 8GB card in 2025 but my guess is 70-80% of prospective buyers just see higher number equals more better.

We are getting similarly dismal products from AMD soon so good for Nvidia I guess.

 

[Rigg]

The market conditions are irrelevant cause I 8sed msrps. The actual price for the card at the time was 1600$ (alternate de).

Everything else you are saying is completely irrelevant. I'm not comparing the card, I'm saying thay a 1.3k msrp card had to drop settings on 3 year old games and it's fine (evident by the fact that you are defending said card) , but a 399$ gpu having to drop settings? No, that's where we draw the line!!


It's not a good product for sure, but that's not just because of vram. The 16gb version isn't a good product either. The gen on gen improvements are lacking.

I'm not defending the MSRP of the 6950 XT. It's launch price was an abomination as was it's direct predecessor's. Despite that, my counterargument still works with the MSRPs. It's only made better when realistic street pricing comes into play. Since when are we using special edition OC cards for MSRP comparisons anyway? Who was claiming this card was a good buy at MSRP? What kind of bad faith nonsense is that? Even with your cherry picked $1300 MSRP (come on bruh) my argument still stands vs the $2000 3090 Ti MSRP. Using this logic, the 5060 Ti 8GB should cost $280.

Nobody wanted the 6900 XT at $1000. Reviewers and consumers alike saw it as an incredibly stupid MSRP given it's small performance uplift over the 6800 XT. The reaction was more of the same (perhaps a bit more apathetic because of the market at the time) when they refreshed it with the 6950 XT at $1100. Nobody was defending the asking price of either of these cards. Nobody was recommending them over the 6800 XT until they dropped below $750 street. Despite the spike in GPU demand during Covid, they still didn't sell particularity well at MSRP. They had tons of both of them available at a huge discount for well over a year before stock dried up.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

You know, after 17 pages it seems like the only agreeable point is that the market itself is too expensive. There are those that want to whine about the performance. Those that want to whine that the 5060ti isn't the lowest end card Nvidia is going to release, so you should stop claiming this is entry level performance. There are even those that want to defend the literal few dollars it took to go from 8 GB to 16 GB of VRAM as a reasonable step-down for consumers of $50...only assuming MSRP.

I've heard both sides. I've seen the benchmarks that both demonstrate current games can hit that 8GB, and those that claim that 99% of games will not (under the auspices that most games already exist, and most games aren't resource hogs). I've seen people bend over backwards to justify that buying one of these cards is just peachy. It's "only" $420 right now at a Microcenter near me...while the 5060ti 16GB is at least $100 more and sold out...for again a few dollars worth of VRAM. Not even $10. Soldering on chips with twice the capacity increases the value of a card about 25%...for an additional cost of $10, which blows my mind.
After all of this people still want to defend the value of Nvidia. They want to claim that the entire market is sideways, so it's not a bad product, it's a product that is reasonable in a market that is bad. Cool. I can, right now, buy a $830 9070 xt or a $999 5070ti. Two generations ago the 3080 ended its life under the $999 range...after peaking at similar places to the blackwell nightmare. It was one level higher in relative performance target (relative to Nvidia's own internal goals), which is now nearly $1600. I cannot in good faith pretend the 5060ti, on the same silicon, with two different VRAM quantities makes a single ounce of sense. Good luck on buying these. I think I'll wait another two months for the shelves to stock up on the 9070 xts, the 5060s, and everything else, and not pay any more early adopter tax with $200 upcharges from MSRP because "the tariffs are killing everyone" whilst what amounts to 10% on some goods is seeing 25% inflated prices. Yeah. Market is bad, but it's also greedy to push out price bumps and think nobody can do the math on "tariff" increases and upcharges being unbalanced, and making what could be a good budget card an absolute non-starter due to concerns about viability in only a generation or two.

 

[Rover4444]

No you presented an opinion that was based on invalid and skewed info. That's not meritful.

This definitely isn't projection.

My counterargument still works with the MSRPs. It's only made better when realistic street pricing comes into play. Since when are we using special edition OC cards for MSRP comparisons anyway? What kind of bad faith nonsense is that. Even with your cherry picked $1300 MSRP my argument still stands vs the $2000 3090 Ti MSRP. Using your logic, the 5060 Ti 8GB should cost $280.

Agreed. Seriously don't understand why people are defending this card, it's 5% better than a B580 of course it's DOA LMAO

Soldering on chips with twice the capacity increases the value of a card about 25%...for an additional cost of $10, which blows my mind.

That's not what's happening on the 5060 Ti though, they're clamshelled memory. Doing that process costs at least the price of the extra VRAM.

 

[josge]

this card, it's 5% better than a B580 of course it's DOA LMAO

so the B580 is DOA too?

i'm not defending that gpu btw, for that price getting an 8gb card is criminal.

 

[Dr. Dro]

so the B580 is DOA too?

i'm not defending that gpu btw, for that price getting an 8gb card is criminal.

You are new here, so unspoken rule 1 for TPU old timers: If it's Nvidia, it's bad. If it's AMD, it's ok, and even if it's not ok, it gets a pass. Intel? Whatchamacall it? *rant about Otellini-era corruption and the EU anti-trust case that Intel won anyway*

 

[oxrufiioxo]

You are new here, so unspoken rule 1 for TPU old timers: If it's Nvidia, it's bad. If it's AMD, it's ok, and even if it's not ok, it gets a pass. Intel? Whatchamacall it? *rant about Otellini-era corruption and the EU anti-trust case that Intel won anyway*

Just because AMD releases trash in the sub 400 usd market doesn't mean Nvidia a 3 trillion dollar company should copy them. sinking down to your competitions level isn't a win.

The whole market under 450 usd is pretty much trash and while these companies only obligation is to squeeze as much profit as humanly possible out of consumers they should have at least little pride.....

This Nvidia generation is so bad even AMD can sell their cards at a markup which I can't even remember the last time that's happen outside of a crypto boom and even then they were selling cards for significantly less than Nvidia.

 

[JustBenching]

I'm not defending the MSRP of the 6950 XT. It's launch price was an abomination as was it's direct predecessor's. Despite that, my counterargument still works with the MSRPs. It's only made better when realistic street pricing comes into play. Since when are we using special edition OC cards for MSRP comparisons anyway? Who was claiming this card was a good buy at MSRP? What kind of bad faith nonsense is that? Even with your cherry picked $1300 MSRP (come on bruh) my argument still stands vs the $2000 3090 Ti MSRP. Using this logic, the 5060 Ti 8GB should cost $280.

Nobody wanted the 6900 XT at $1000. Reviewers and consumers alike saw it as an incredibly stupid MSRP given it's small performance uplift over the 6800 XT. The reaction was more of the same (perhaps a bit more apathetic because of the market at the time) when they refreshed it with the 6950 XT at $1100. Nobody was defending the asking price of either of these cards. Nobody was recommending them over the 6800 XT until they dropped below $750 street. Despite the spike in GPU demand during Covid, they still didn't sell particularity well at MSRP. They had tons of both of them available at a huge discount for well over a year before stock dried up.

So - are you actually telling me we had thread after thread after thread about RDNA 2 and whether it's RT performance is "enough" like we do with 8gb? Nope, people bought the cards, turned RT off and moved on. That doesn't just apply to the 6950xt - it applies to every single RDNA 2 (and RDNA 3 card). Where are all the myriad of threads 50 pages long debating whether their RT performance is "enough" and whether or not they are DOA on release?

These threads - and the videos from techtubers exist simply because it's nvidia mixed in. I've counted 17 (!!!!) videos in the last 2 years from HUB alone crying about nvidias 8gb cards. Because we all know - amd doesn't have 8 gb cards. God bless the clicks I guess.