PowerColor Radeon RX 9060 XT Reaper 8 GB

[W1zzard]

We're taking a look at the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which comes with only half the memory size of the 16 GB models, but is at least $50 cheaper. Data from the review suggests that NVIDIA's memory management is much less efficient than the one used on RDNA 4, giving AMD the upper hand.

Show full review

 

[Dirt Chip]

Good enough for the cost, but not the NV killer (like all other 9060 line) we hope for..

 

[jabbadap]

Good enough for the cost, but not the NV killer (like all other 9060 line) we hope for..

Yeah, makes already pointless 5060ti even more pointless. Against 5060 though, it's just which camp one prefers.

 

[Chaitanya]

This SKU should have been culled irrespective of price.

 

[Dristun]

Yeah, makes already pointless 5060ti even more pointless. Against 5060 though, it's just which camp one prefers.

8GB maybe, 16GB - highly depends on where you live. Here 9060XT debuted at the price even higher than 60Ti's are available for, and it's the AMD card that is completely pointless even if the cost was the same.

 

[jabbadap]

8GB maybe, 16GB - highly depends on where you live. Here 9060XT debuted at the price even higher than 60Ti's are available for, and it's the AMD card that is completely pointless even if the cost was the same.

Right you are, forgot to specify that I mean 8GB version of the ti.

 

[Flying Fish]

This is more interesting than I thought it would be

On the 8GB 5060 Ti review, the 5060 Ti 8GB was consistently ahead of the 16GB @ 1080p (better use of power budget from fewer RAM chips?) but on the 8GB 9060 XT review it's consistently behind the 16GB variant, so much so that on the 1080p average FPS chart it even falls behind the 5060 8GB? Never mind the 5060 Ti's!

Have AMD messed up the power budget on the 8GB chips or has powercolour messed up, either way very different behaviour....

@W1zzard mentioned a weak cooling solution in his conclusion, is that enough to be holding the 8GB card back vs the 16GB?

 

[ThomasK]

On the 8GB 5060 Ti review, the 5060 Ti 8GB was consistently ahead of the 16GB @ 1080p (better use of power budget from fewer RAM chips?) but on the 8GB 9060 XT review it's consistently behind the 16GB variant, so much so that on the 1080p average FPS chart it even falls behind the 5060 8GB? Never mind the 5060 Ti's!

Have AMD messed up the power budget on the 8GB chips or has powercolour messed up, either way very different behaviour....

From what I've read on the media, the 8GB models stick to reference clocks, whilst the 16GB ones are most, if not all, factory overclocked, with higher boost clocks. Hence the higher performance.

At least it has more efficient memory management than Nvidia's 8 Gig models. Both DOA either way.

 

[Flying Fish]

I mean, I don't see the 8GB models as DOA myself as they're perfectly usable @ 1080p in most titles and probably will last a few years so... shrug

But hey, I come from a time where upgrading every couple of years was the norm anyway

*edit*
Also from the looks of it, W1zzard tests the cards with stock clocks? On the Asus Prime 9060 XT review that came out first, using the Alan Woke 2 @ 1080p chart as an example, the Asus Prime 16GB card recorded 83.2 FPS, the RX 9060 XT 16GB result recorded 81.3 FPS.

That 81.3 FPS is the score that's on todays 8GB card review.... So I don't think it's to do with OC models vs non OC

 

[Dirt Chip]

Funny thing is that the 9060 is the better choice even at 'low-end RT' vs the 5060ti (both @8GB).
NV crippled it so much as to lose the biggest advantage they had..

Also, Will be interesting to see the 9060 with pcie @x8 to better know if AMD really have the upper hand with memory management (because the 5060ti with 8GB do worse than 9060 8GB when low on memory).

If so, NV loose another cornerstone thay have advantage at- memory compression algorithm.

And by that, to lose both at RT and memory control in the name of profit for the low-end, will show where NV is heading: non-dlss performance will stagnant\go backwards.

Much fun and love is coming from NV to all of us budget shoppers

 

[_roman_]

More fuel for those 8GiB guys who claim 8Gib is still enough

• Despite 8 GB VRAM, great experience in all games at 1080p

Not my money. Some want to spend education money on not the best purchases.

Numbers do not look that worse for those games. Too bad I do not sit in front to judge the shown graphics for both 8gib and 16gib. e.g. missing textures and other issues.

 

[W1zzard]

Also from the looks of it, W1zzard tests the cards with stock clocks? On the Asus Prime 9060 XT review that came out first, using the Alan Woke 2 @ 1080p chart as an example, the Asus Prime 16GB card recorded 83.2 FPS, the RX 9060 XT 16GB result recorded 81.3 FPS.

Cards are tested at out of the box clocks, which means factory OC for the factory OC cards and reference clocks for the PowerColor card in this review.

The base 9060 XT 16 GB is a close-to-reference card running with the reference BIOS for 16 GB, which has 160 W power limit. The reference power limit for the 8 GB cards is 150 W, which explains some perf differences. Cooling does have a small effect, too, look at page 39: "Thermal Analysis", note how the GPU frequency goes down as the card heats up. This behavior varies between cards, also warmer card = more power because warmer chip draws more power at same everything = hitting power limit sooner.

 

[Flying Fish]

Yeah thanks, I'd just noticed that the 8GB AMD card has 10W less power because I was thinking what they doing with the power budget? That explains it.

So a combination of that + poor cooler drops it below the 5060 Non-Ti on average @ 1080p :| Bit odd from AMD and poor showing from PowerColor

Which, to me from my perspective, takes it from the 5060 Ti 8GB's "might be viable for just 1080p gaming for a few years" to "....not really worth it" on the AMD 8GB

 

[Rowsol]

No one is going to choose AMD over Nvidia for a 3% better price/performance. They need to lower the price of this. $250, max. If this thing was 200, it would fly off the shelf.

 

[W1zzard]

drops it below the 5060 Non-Ti on average @ 1080p

You are looking at average FPS, which is affected by the 0 score for TLOU due to the card crashing. Relative performance excludes it, which I think is a better indicator of what to expect.

 

[Flying Fish]

Damnit, I missed that xD
Ok I guess that explains it O_O

Although there's still some fairly sizeable differences between the 16GB and 8GB in some tests which show the opposite on the nvidia, I still don't think it's a great look for AMD on the 8GB

 

[Tomgang]

Just don´t go buy 8 GB cards these days. Say no. It´s the only way we can get Nvidia and AMD to see no one wants all ready DOA cards at lauch. I can see if your budget limited, but else stay far away from 8 gb or less cards.

In my oppinion. GPU lay out should have been like this.

9060 none XT if that comes 12 GB vram
9060 Xt 16 GB vram.
RTX 5060 12 GB vram
RTX 5060 TI 16 gb Vram
And scrap all these stupid 8 GB cards.

Well what ever people bay a 8 gb or 16 GB cards. I can´t deside. But i can deffently say smaller cards 12 gb vram and the Ti/XT viriant 16 GB. Much more up to date i think. Forget these 8 GB cards.

 

[MKRonin]

Average FPS, 1920x1080 results:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 94.0
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 91.2

Relative Performance, 1920x1080:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 97%
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 100%


What am I missing?

 

[mroofie]

Average FPS, 1920x1080 results:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 94.0
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 91.2

Relative Performance, 1920x1080:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 97%
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 100%


What am I missing?

Check ray and path tracing rx 9060 rapes the 5060

 

[MKRonin]

Check ray and path tracing rx 9060 rapes the 5060

The point of my post is that one of those charts is incorrect.

 

[W1zzard]

Average FPS, 1920x1080 results:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 94.0
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 91.2

Relative Performance, 1920x1080:

RTX 5060 8 GB - 97%
RX 9060 XT 8 Reaper GB - 100%


What am I missing?

Post in thread 'PowerColor Radeon RX 9060 XT Reaper 8 GB'

Jun 8, 2025

drops it below the 5060 Non-Ti on average @ 1080p

You are looking at average FPS, which is affected by the 0 score for TLOU due to the card crashing. Relative performance excludes it, which I think is a better indicator of what to expect.

• W1zzard

• 

 

[MKRonin]

Post in thread 'PowerColor Radeon RX 9060 XT Reaper 8 GB'

Jun 8, 2025

drops it below the 5060 Non-Ti on average @ 1080p

You are looking at average FPS, which is affected by the 0 score for TLOU due to the card crashing. Relative performance excludes it, which I think is a better indicator of what to expect.

• W1zzard

• 

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[ARF]

On the 8GB 5060 Ti review, the 5060 Ti 8GB was consistently ahead of the 16GB @ 1080p (better use of power budget from fewer RAM chips?)

I guess on the 8GB RTX 5060 Ti Nvidia is limiting the textures resolution. They have been caught multiple times in image quality cheating.

No one is going to choose AMD over Nvidia for a 3% better price/performance. They need to lower the price of this. $250, max. If this thing was 200, it would fly off the shelf.

Even that won't convince many to buy a Radeon. Even if the price difference is 100%, the choice is clear - Nvidia.

 

[JustBenching]

I guess on the 8GB RTX 5060 Ti Nvidia is limiting the textures resolution. They have been caught multiple times in image quality cheating.

Stop the misinformation man, what's the point of it? It's the game that limits the texture resolution, not nvidia. Wtf

Even that won't convince many to buy a Radeon. Even if the price difference is 100%, the choice is clear - Nvidia.

Maybe because they see that the people suggesting them to buy amd misinform them just like you did and don't trust you.

 

[theglaze]

I was not expecting 9060xt 8GB to (basically) tie 5060ti 8GB at 4K.
9060xt has less memory bandwidth (322.3 GB/s vs 448.0 GB/s)

If the VRAM is saturated at 4K, I figured that would give 5060ti 8GB an advantage.
Instead, 4K is (relatively) the best look for 9060xt 8GB.