PowerColor Radeon RX 9060 XT Reaper 8 GB

[Al Chafai]

Waiting for the PCIe scaling benchmark for this card and the RTX 5060Ti 8GB as well, the 16GB 5060Ti testing was good but we all know how the large VRAM buffer help mitigate some issues.

 

[LittleBro]

I'm quite impressed about how this card handles situations where RTX 5060 (Ti) 8 GB struggles.
AMD's memory management, despite having nearly 30% slower VRAM, seems to be better than RTX 5060 in few cases.
Most probably that's thanks to PCIe x16 interface.

So, Nvidia's Path Tracing (not that PT actually matters) kind of becomes their own gimmick even in 1080p:

This card could be faster, if it weren't so power limited.
Still, I think there should have been only one RX 9060 XT and with 192-bit bus and 12 GB VRAM, priced at $300-319$.

 

[ArM4444]

better performance than expected, but still this should have been named the 9060 & had an msrp o 270$ to be a good product

 

[mroofie]

Oh well for people who can only fork out 300usd instead of 400usd for the 16GB models, looks like the 5060 is the much better option.

How AMD want to gain marketshare with this kind of budget GPU is beyond me

Lmao what?

 

[beautyless]

I'm quite impressed about how this card handles situations where RTX 5060 (Ti) 8 GB struggles.
AMD's memory management, despite having nearly 30% slower VRAM, seems to be better than RTX 5060 in few cases.
Most probably that's thanks to PCIe x16 interface.

Can't wait for TPU's review on the PCEe x8 bandwitdth limit.

In my area, all the 16GB cards went out of stock on just a second day after release.
The only way to get one is to buy a full DIY PC bundle, not just the card.
Only the 8GB are remain in stock.

 

[leonavis]

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?

Avg FPS is "all games FPS added, divided by number of games"

For example, lets say 5060 on CS2 300FPS vs 9060 220FPS, Cyberpunk 50FPS vs 80FPS = 175FPS vs 150FPS avg

But percentagewise 220FPS = 73,3% of 300FPS
50FPS = 62,5% of 80FPS

So the 9060 would be lower in Avg FPS but higher in percentages

(All numbers are made up)

 

[tommo1982]

Thank you for the review. I was waiting for the 8GB benchmark. Turns out it's not a bad card. It's actually perfect for me, since I play at 1080p60 and don't plan to change anytime soon. Mostly due to electricity price and power consumption at higher resolution/fps.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I did ask for a sample of the 8 GB variant, but nobody was wiling to provide one, so I just bought a card in retail to bring you this review.

And alot of people thank you for this. Damn decent indeed! The budget minded market will find this review encouraging.

Yeah, makes already pointless 5060ti even more pointless.

Did you actually read this review? No, it doesn't. Just stop.

it's just which camp one prefers.

At least you got that part right.

I'm quite impressed about how this card handles situations where RTX 5060 (Ti) 8 GB struggles.

Agreed. AMD has stepped up to the plate and something good going. Though to be fair, it's a trade off. The 5060ti has area's of performance where it excels more. So, as ever, it's up to buyers to figure out what's important to them and get the card they need.

 

[Chrispy_]

So basically the same as the 5060 8GB.

Just enough VRAM for non-RT games today but falls apart entirely if you use RT or any of the AI features that are also needed to make RT playable on a GPU of this performance-tier.

As always, it begs the question of whether you even need a new GPU if it won't handle future games, and can't handle modern additions like RT/Upscaling/Framegen in current games. For decent esports performance you don't need to waste $300 on something with such questionable future prospects, if you even need a new GPU at all.

 

[jaszy]

To my knowledge GDDR6 is less efficient than GDDR7. Wonder what's happening here where the 5060 8GB / Ti 8GB are being impacted before the 9060 XT 8GB.

RT results are very interesting...

Could be cache config on AMD side.

 

[thevoiceofreason]

Can't wait for TPU's review on the PCEe x8 bandwitdth limit.

I'm interested in 4x as well. Many people (myself included) are still on older B450 mobos that can only do 3.0 x16 (which would be 5.0 x4)

 

[GhostRyder]

I mean for 1080p this card is fine with the 8gb, I still do not like this 8gb/16gb editions of the same card. Would prefer they just did the 9060 Non XT as the 8gb card. Kinda feel at this price point I agree with the review stating these need to be 12gb minimum in this day and age (heck, it might be enough for it to just be a 12gb model only and no 8gb or 16gb models but maybe I am being crazy).

Though I always stand by the fact that more memory is better for long term gaming/those that don't upgrade their cards every other year.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

So, opinion. People who want a 1080p card for the lowest possible budget can seek out an old 5000 series AMD processor or an Intel 11th generation processor. Link it with some spare DDR4, a decent motherboard, and with a 9060 8GB and have something that costs around a modern console (300 (GPU)+150 (CPU)+120 (Mobo)+40 (RAM)+50 (PSU) = 660). It has been a while since we've been able to bring something comparable to a competent console from the gaming side...and in my book that's some sort of a win.

Unfortunately, what we actually need is the 300 to be closer to 240-270 dollars. The remaining win would then be a middle end 7000 series processor from AMD that's actually about $100 to pair with a $100 motherboard...bringing us nicely to 530-560 dollars...which actually gives us a reason to be happy and something to directly compare to the 600 dollar consoles... Color me less than impressed with a 1080p card at these prices, going up against consoles claiming 4k. The only great thing is that these 150 watt cards will probably be excellent set and forget media transcoders once they drop into the $240 range near the end of their life cycles, once they've gotten a rather significant discount to help them move off of the store shelves while people who actually want to game are getting the 16 GB models to prevent having to buy a new card next generation.

 

[LastDudeALive]

Doesn't need fixing in that way, need fixing like in more Vram.

No, it's 100% a driver issue. Indiana Jones 1080p, for instance. The 9060 XT gets a respectable 48fps (although VRAM is obviously a significant limit given the 80fps of the 16GB version). But the 8GB Nvidia cards just crash. So the game can obviously run with 8GB of VRAM, but Nvidia isn't managing it properly (or the game isn't handling 8GB Nvidia GPUs properly, but either way I'd say it's Nvidia's responsibility to take the initiative on fixing it).

 

[W1zzard]

but either way I'd say it's Nvidia's responsibility to take the initiative on fixing it).

This is fixed in DOOM The Dark Ages btw

 

[mroofie]

I'm interested in 4x as well. Many people (myself included) are still on older B450 mobos that can only do 3.0 x16 (which would be 5.0 x4)

Yeah im wondering about this too..
My motherboard has a pcie 3.0 x16 lane

 

[Chrispy_]

So, opinion. People who want a 1080p card for the lowest possible budget can seek out an old 5000 series AMD processor or an Intel 11th generation processor. Link it with some spare DDR4, a decent motherboard, and with a 9060 8GB and have something that costs around a modern console (300 (GPU)+150 (CPU)+120 (Mobo)+40 (RAM)+50 (PSU) = 660). It has been a while since we've been able to bring something comparable to a competent console from the gaming side...and in my book that's some sort of a win.

Unfortunately, what we actually need is the 300 to be closer to 240-270 dollars. The remaining win would then be a middle end 7000 series processor from AMD that's actually about $100 to pair with a $100 motherboard...bringing us nicely to 530-560 dollars...which actually gives us a reason to be happy and something to directly compare to the 600 dollar consoles... Color me less than impressed with a 1080p card at these prices, going up against consoles claiming 4k. The only great thing is that these 150 watt cards will probably be excellent set and forget media transcoders once they drop into the $240 range near the end of their life cycles, once they've gotten a rather significant discount to help them move off of the store shelves while people who actually want to game are getting the 16 GB models to prevent having to buy a new card next generation.

If you're going to buy an 8GB card in the performance ballpark of a 5060/9060 - then you can grab a used RTX 3060Ti or 3070 for $200. DLSS4 support and esports/frame-generation don't mix anyway so it's irrelevant. It's easy to find a tested, working RX 5700XT for under $150, and that'll chew through most eSports titles at hundreds of frames a second too.

$300 is a lot to pay for 8GB, and just about everyone has been saying that for almost three years straight at this point.

Is there still a place for 8GB cards? Sure.
Should you spend more than $250 on an 8GB card? Absolutely not!

 

[dyonoctis]

In any remotely realistic test, among the "lousy 8GB stack", the 9060 XT will be moderately better because it's PCIe x16. That’s one of the reasons it outperforms its counterparts in RT.
Ray tracing puts a heavy load on VRAM, forcing GPUs to rely on system RAM. In this scenario, AMD’s GPUs benefit from significantly higher bandwidth, whereas the 8GB 5060/5060 Ti are bottlenecked by their x8 interface.

Yikes. looks like somes games might be unplayable on a PCIe 4.0 system

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

If you're going to buy an 8GB card in the performance ballpark of a 5060/9060 - then you can grab a used RTX 3060Ti or 3070 for $200. DLSS4 support and esports/frame-generation don't mix anyway so it's irrelevant. It's easy to find a tested, working RX 5700XT for under $150, and that'll chew through most eSports titles at hundreds of frames a second too.

$300 is a lot to pay for 8GB, and just about everyone has been saying that for almost three years straight at this point.

Is there still a place for 8GB cards? Sure.
Should you spend more than $250 on an 8GB card? Absolutely not!

You...really want to change the bar here, which is the problem. Note that everything that I stated can be purchased new for those prices...and thus is not a question of being able to get a deal or compromise on performance with the pre-owned roulette. Please also note that some sites are selling pre-owned 3060 ti cards for around $300...which aligns pretty well with the price of this card...but the 9060 8GB is new. Not some potentially 4+ year old used mess.

You'll also note that I similarly said that it was interesting that the 8GB model was at $300, but it should be in the $240-270 range...which is exactly the point that you parroted.

I'm not sure why you start with criticism of what I bring to the table, and then so often agree with the same exact points. I'm also not sure why you aren't rocking up to this discussion and like others creating a fantasy situation where people are out there selling perfectly good 3080s for $300...because reasons. I'll simply respond that the 3080 I have today is absolutely still great, the 9070xt is a fine card, and that neither of them will be hitting $300 until they've seen an absolutely silly amount of usage that will make them not viable or reasonable to spend that kind of money on. This is especially true when the 3060 cards are often hitting above $300 on fleabay. The only option (for the 3080) under $350 is a founders edition at time of writing...so something that's probably about 5 years old. Ouch.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Yikes. looks like somes games might be unplayable on a PCIe 4.0 system
View attachment 403125

I'm not buying this at all. Calling BS! There has got to be glitch somewhere because other older 8GB cards are not showing this behaviour. 2060S/2070/2080/3060/3070/Etc are just not exhibiting the performance drop shown in that graph. Whether it's is a game engine issue, a driver problem or that website flat out falsifying numbers, there is a problem in the testing, not with the card or else ALL 8GB cards would show the same kind of results and people would have thrown a tantrum about it much sooner. Complete moose muffins!

 

[Chrispy_]

You'll also note that I similarly said that it was interesting that the 8GB model was at $300, but it should be in the $240-270 range...which is exactly the point that you parroted.

So you agree that $300 is too much?

I wasn't arguing against you, just agreeing that more than about $250 is too much for a new GPU with only 8GB. Same as I said for the 5060 and 5060Ti 8GB reviews. I'm not picking sides or displaying any brand loyalty here - the statements I make are valid for all three GPUs and this is the third GPU review I've mentioned it in.

It sure would be nice if there was a new GPU on sale at that sort of price point but I picked used simply because nobody is making a brand new card at that price point right now. AMD would rather sell you an APU like the 8700G instead, and Nvidia's 5050 is probably 6 weeks out.

Given that you feel $240-270 is a reasonable price for this, and the (still overpriced) 5060 is $300, AMD's strategy of "Nvidia -20%" would put the sensible price of a 9060 8GB at $240. Especially since FSR4 lacks the developer support that DLSS4 lacks, and buying AMD also locks you out of the vast library of CUDA-specific applications, should you wish to do more than just gaming on your GPU.

 

[LastDudeALive]

Currently, there's plenty of 8GB 9060 XT models at $299, same as some RTX 5060 models. https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#c=594,593,596&sort=price&page=1

16GB RX 9060 XT models start at $390, with a 5060-Ti 16GB at $430 (at Best Buy).

Full disclosure, I'm not in this market, but if I was building a PC for someone at this budget and performance level, I think I would still take a 5060 over the 9060 XT at the same price, or a 5060-Ti 16GB at $430 over a 9060 XT 16GB at $390.

This is close to a repeat of last-gen performance, RX 7600 matching the 4060. The street price on the 7600 ended up around $260 or so while the 4060 stayed at $300. However, the RX 7600 had the problem of a massive supply of RX 6600s, 6600 XTs, and 6650 XTs still being sold along side it and offering almost the same performance. We'll see if the last-gen stock finally being sold out, along with better ray tracing performance, is enough to make the price match the 5060 this time around.

 

[Mrgravia]

If I was looking at the 5060 and the 9060xt 8gb, I'd probabaly take the 9060 honestly. Seems to be a tad better bang for the buck.

Unless of course one needed single fan or LP.

 

[PixelTech]

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.

Except people don't have to deal with NV's bad but getting better graphics drivers.

 

[_roman_]

Yikes. looks like somes games might be unplayable on a PCIe 4.0 system

This just fits my argument that the VRAM is too often swapped via the PCIE bus. The bus speed is most likely too slow for that.

It looks like another computerbase chart. To know the real details it would have been better they also tested with much lower speeds.
PCE 2.0 or PCIE 1 with 4 or 8 lanes when the mainboard supports it.