• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT to Roll Out 8 GB GDDR6 Edition, Despite Rumors

AleksandarK

AleksandarK

News Editor
Staff member
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
3,038 (1.07/day)
A few weeks ago, we reported on AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT, which is scheduled to come right after this year's Computex show. Some early leaks have pointed to the existence of two Radeon RX 9060 XT variants: one with 16 GB of GDDR6 VRAM and another with an 8 GB GDDR6 capacity. Recent rumors have begun speculating that the 8 GB card is not coming at all, which BenchLife now debunks. According to the publication: "As for the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB version, we have reliable sources telling us that there is currently no plan to stop supply or cancel it. As for the news from the market, it is just a rumor. The main reason is as mentioned earlier, it is entirely due to the reaction to the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti."

The 8 GB version of NVIDIA's latest GeForce RTX 5060 Ti wasn't well received. It wasn't even supplied to reviewers, and out own review was delayed as we waited to buy a card off the shelf. TechPowerUp's reviewer W1zzard confirmed that "If you want ray tracing, then RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is your best option, and of course anything upcoming from AMD in that price bracket—we've been hearing rumors about an RX 9060 Series after Computex, an RX 9070 GRE is also likely, but both are unknowns in terms of performance and pricing." Perhaps if AMD can price this 8 GB card aggressively, it will receive praise from consumers. If not, it will be a turning point for the mid-range PC gamers, who now demand more VRAM for their cards so they are not left behind with future title releases, especially as they become more demanding.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 
I mean, I guess 8GB still makes sense for 1080p low everything if you just need to run a game and don't care about looks, but price needs to seriously reflect that. Otherwise it's pointless.

Then again, why not have RX 9060 series as 16GB only and turn RX 9060 8GB into RX 9050 8GB and just offer it as that, a single RX 9050 SKU that only comes in 8GB option. There is no point in gutting RX 9060 any further, honestly as it's already pretty low in terms of performance, but memory difference could be detrimental not all that long term.

So, the lineup would go like:
RX 9070 XT 16GB
RX 9070 16GB
RX 9060 XT 16GB
RX 9060 16GB
RX 9050 8GB (just renamed RX 9060, but with only 8GB VRAM)

That would totally make sense. And AMD should go into a marketing push of "8GB is not enough" themselves. Seeing how NVIDIA is fumbling around with memory capacity all the time, that would be great opportunity to market on. Especially since all reviewers are on board with this too. But they didn't take on that for some reason which is such a missed opportunity.
 
JustBenching said:
public outcry that was backed by 0 logical reasoning
Click to expand...
These "illogical outcries" are the only thin thread this market's health is hanging on right now. The acceptance of low VRAM count cards sold for long dollar is hindering the progress. Also, raw performance to VRAM amount ratio grows at an alarming rate. 8 years ago, there was almost no way of meaningfully going out of VRAM. Today, 8 GB significantly limits the usefulness of an otherwise solid die. See the 5060 Ti 8 VS 16 comparison for yourself, there's a number of games where the latter takes it home.

I'm not saying 8 GB cards shouldn't exist. I'm saying 8 GB cards sold for significant money shouldn't exist. That's why 5060 Ti 8 GB is a big screw up. 9060 XT 8 GB for 330+ is a massive disappointment. Same stuff but for, say, 250? Now it's reasonable.
 
Macro Device said:
The acceptance of low VRAM count cards sold for long dollar
Click to expand...
Cards are and will remain expensive regardless of the amount of vram. An 8gb card will be cheaper than a 16gb, removing the option of an 8gb card won't magically make cards cheaper. In contrary, it will make them more expensive, since you won't have the option to buy a cheaper 8gb card. So no, the complaints are completely illogical.

RejZoR said:
And AMD should go into a marketing push of "8GB is not enough" themselves.
Click to expand...
They did that in the past and it bit them in the rear, since they had to go through and delete all of their marketing material when they decided to launch the 4gb 6500xt.
 
JustBenching said:
removing the option of an 8gb card won't magically make cards cheaper.
Click to expand...
Another one not even trying to read. Where have I said we should get rid of the option? I explained why these complaints have merit. Because, obviously, the 5060 Ti 8 GB is beyond all reason expensive. Were it sold for 2 hundred bucks, there wouldn't be a reason to complain. However, not the case.
 
Do we know what the actual price difference is betwen 8GB and 16GB VRAM? I've read numbers it's basically only $20-$30, in which case I would say it's time to leave 8GB behind.
 
Macro Device said:
Another one not even trying to read. Where have I said we should get rid of the option? I explained why these complaints have merit. Because, obviously, the 5060 Ti 8 GB is beyond all reason expensive. Were it sold for 2 hundred bucks, there wouldn't be a reason to complain. However, not the case.
Click to expand...
So you are saying cards are expensive. Agreed. Has nothing to do with the amount of vram.
 
Frick said:
So why not have more of it?
Click to expand...
Because the card with more vram will cost more than the card with less. That's captain obvious stuff, isn't it? If you want more of it, get the 16gb version, if you don't save some money and buy the cheaper 8gb. Why is this an issue?
 
JustBenching said:
Because the card with more vram will cost more than the card with less. That's captain obvious stuff, isn't it? If you want more of it, get the 16gb version, if you don't save some money and buy the cheaper 8gb. Why is this an issue?
Click to expand...

You said VRAM had nothing to do with the cost of the card.
 
JustBenching said:
No, I said vram has nothing to do with the cards being expensive. Cards are expensive. All of them. Not releasing 8gb version cards won't make cards cheaper.
Click to expand...

So if the VRAM has nothing to do with the cards being expensive (as in, is not affecting the price of the card), why not have more VRAM? I don't understand the problem here.
 
$200 or it's DOA lol
Frick said:
So if the VRAM has nothing to do with the cards being expensive (as in, is not affecting the price of the card), why not have more VRAM? I don't understand the problem here.
Click to expand...
What's not to get? Upcharging you $100 for $20 of VRAM means the $500 card is a better deal than the $600 one!

Mack4285 said:
Do we know what the actual price difference is betwen 8GB and 16GB VRAM? I've read numbers it's basically only $20-$30, in which case I would say it's time to leave 8GB behind.
Click to expand...
It's cheaper than that, actually, for GDDR6 anyways. Clamshelling the memory adds even more cost which is why designing proper VRAM capacities ahead of time is important.
 
embarrasing performance by AMD, but not that it matters, everyone buys Nvidia anyway and at this point, who can blame them?
 
Frick said:
?
Click to expand...
If you don't understand what's being said, can't help you man. It's pretty clear.

Rover4444 said:
That's literally what you said. Twice. There's no other way to take it.
Click to expand...
Let me quote my self

Because the card with more vram will cost more than the card with less

Sure man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top