NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

The RTX 3060 Ti's strongest measured trait is frames per $100 at 17.5 fps/$100, which puts it in the 66th percentile — that metric describes raw frames bought per hundred dollars, before any age weighting. Its weakest is ray tracing retention at 43% of raster (39th percentile). The spread is narrow, so the card behaves consistently across workloads rather than trading one strength for one weakness.

The RTX 3060 Ti turns a 200W board power budget into 70 fps at 1440p, or 0.35 fps/W against a pool median of 0.32 fps/W. Power, not transistor count, is the binding constraint on a modern GPU — Dennard scaling stopped holding around 2005, and Esmaeilzadeh and colleagues showed at ISCA 2011 that the fraction of a chip that can be powered at full speed shrinks with every node (“dark silicon”). Frames per watt is the shortest honest summary of what an architecture is doing with that budget.

For scale: the closest NVIDIA card from an earlier generation is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Super (2019), at 66.1 fps and 250W. The RTX 3060 Ti is 6% faster while drawing 50W less.

Every rendered pixel has to be fed from memory. At 1440p the RTX 3060 Ti has 1,736 B/px of memory bandwidth available per pixel it draws, against a median of 1,808 B/px — roughly in balance for its performance class. This is the roofline model applied to a game frame: Williams, Waterman and Patterson (Communications of the ACM, 2009) showed that any workload runs into either a compute ceiling or a memory-bandwidth ceiling, and that the ratio of the two is what decides which one you hit.

On memory capacity, the RTX 3060 Ti carries 8GB against a median of 11GB across the 9 other cards within 10% of its 1440p frame rate. It has less memory than the cards it competes with on speed, which is the constraint to watch: a card fast enough to run high texture settings but short on VRAM to hold them stutters rather than slows.

Method: percentiles are computed over the 77 non-legacy cards with a 1440p figure. Frame rates come from Tom's Hardware GPU hierarchy; specifications from manufacturer datasheets. Theoretical FP32 TFLOPS is deliberately not used as a cross-vendor comparison — RDNA 3 and 4 dual-issue FP32 doubles the paper figure without doubling game performance, and AMD itself declined to count it as extra shaders. The measured Steel Nomad score is used as the compute proxy instead. GPURanker does not run its own benchmarks.