Clock Speed Disparities Noted Between Yeston's Radeon RX 9060 XT GAEA 16 GB & 8 GB SKUs

[T0@st]

Earlier in the week, Yeston revealed a sci-fi/cyberpunk character-themed Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB Game Ace SKU. Eager followers of the Chinese brand were wondering whether additional custom designs—based on AMD's Navi 44 XT GPU—were in the pipeline, possibly ready in time for an official June 5 launch. In Yeston's case, they expect to start shipping on June 7—exclusively for the Chinese market. Fortunately, several dual-fan "GAEA" and triple-fan "Game Ace White" models have turned up on Yeston's JD.com storefront. VideoCardz has pored over the fundamentals, and quickly realized that there are key differences—in terms of GPU clock speeds—when cross-referencing entry-level/barebones GAEA 16 GB and 8 GB card specifications.

The latter variant seems to exist as Yeston's absolute baseline MSRP option; its pre-order tag is 2499 RMB, including VAT. Curiously, pre-launch info seems to show the 16 GB sibling (2899 RMB, inc. VAT) possessing elevated boost and game clocks: 3230 MHz and 2620 GHz (respectively). The lesser model makes do with Team Red's reference figures: 3130 MHz and 2530 MHz (respectively). VideoCardz believes that this is an isolated case; they have not stumbled upon similar spec disparities between product family members—be it with other AIBs or within Yeston's stable. It could be safe to assume that Yeston's product pages contain inaccurate or placeholder numbers.




The aforementioned triple-fan Yeston Radeon RX 9060 XT "White Game Ace" model is only available as an 8 GB option. Its fancier livery demands a slight upcharge over a GAEA equivalent—total cost of ownership is 2649 RMB (inc. VAT). No factory overclocking is implemented at this price point.



The "black/purple/pink" + ARGB zone-equipped Game Ace OC 16 GB SKU seems to be Yeston's Navi 44 XT flagship design. Their JD listing sports a 3099 RMB (inc. VAT) price tag. This range topper grants 3320 MHz boost and 2780 MHz game clocks.



It is not clear whether a Game Ace OC 8 GB variant will emerge post-launch week.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[LabRat 891]

Unless there's a 9060 (non-XT) on the way, it's starting to seem like the 8GB 9060 XT should've just dropped the XT suffix.

RX 9060 8GB
RX 9060 XT 16GB

I'd bet AMD didn't want to lose out on directly competing with the 5060 Ti 8GB, though. (Given, they contorted their branding to match nV)

 

[ZoneDymo]

Unless there's a 9060 (non-XT) on the way, it's starting to seem like the 8GB 9060 XT should've just dropped the XT suffix.


I'd bet AMD didn't want to lose out on directly competing with the 5060 Ti 8GB, though. (Given, they contorted their branding to match nV)

yeah, honestly with AMD I almost feel they are doing this crap on purpose.

 

[_roman_]

128Bit really is a game changer for performance, lol

 

[Marcus L]

That's GAEA AF

Also a nothingburger, it could a slightly factory OC model for the 16GB version, and it's 100mhz we are talking about which will equal no discernable/noticeable difference, though I am hoping for MSRP £350 for the 16GB anything more and it is 6800 XT performance for current 6800 XT price, stagnation at it's finest (yes I know improved RT/FSR 4 etc but still)

 

[lightofhonor]

That's GAEA AF

Also a nothingburger, it could a slightly factory OC model for the 16GB version, and it's 100mhz we are talking about which will equal no discernable/noticeable difference, though I am hoping for MSRP £350 for the 16GB anything more and it is 6800 XT performance for current 6800 XT price, stagnation at it's finest (yes I know improved RT/FSR 4 etc but still)

There is also a TDP difference of 35W to account for the 16GB using extra power for more memory, though that could also give a slight tick to clock speed.

 

[lexluthermiester]

3230 MHz and 2620 GHz (respectively). The lesser model makes do with Team Red's reference figures: 3130 MHz and 2530 MHz (respectively).

This is not enough of a difference to matter. We're talking about less than 1%(ish) difference.
Who cares...

 

[Macro Device]

less than 1% difference.

Allow me to disagree. It's 3 percent.

Still, you're right it's not a difference one should pay attention to. Impossible to tell these clocks apart in a blind test.

 

[LabRat 891]

Allow me to disagree. It's 3 percent.
View attachment 401905
Still, you're right it's not a difference one should pay attention to. Impossible to tell these clocks apart in a blind test.

TBQH, neither of these cards will likely ever see precisely the stated clocks. My 9070XT likes to go over set boost clocks on some loads, and heavy loads eat up the thermal/power budget.

If honesty were the goal in specs, they'd not even call them 'game' or 'boost' clocks, they'd call it a "Frequency Target".

 

[lexluthermiester]

Allow me to disagree. It's 3 percent.
View attachment 401905
Still, you're right it's not a difference one should pay attention to. Impossible to tell these clocks apart in a blind test.

I was guesstimating the averaged cumulative differences in performance between the clock sets(GPU+Mem), but you got the idea. No one is going to notice or "feel" that difference outside of a benchmark, and even then it's going to be margin of error type stuff. Someone(company) did this a few years ago with NVidia GPU's(can't remember who or when, it's been a hot minute) to much the same effect. It's not a big deal.

 

[Vayra86]

The most interesting news item here is not that it clocks higher, but that it clocks higher despite the 16GB.

Seems like AMD has put a better product in the market than a 5060ti 16GB in comparison as that one loses frames due to its expanded VRAM. Its literally 'slap another 8GB on that card' minimum effort Nvidia at work. The 9060XT, much like the 9070s seem to be getting more TLC than all of Blackwell. Even if that isn't necessarily even a compliment - its a shitshow all over if we're being fair.

We could have not had this gen release at all and nobody would miss a thing. All AMD seems to be doing is trying to break even with Nvidia offerings to maximize the stagnation, this time around, so they're really putting their 'minimum effort to keep pace with Nvidia' up against Nvidia's overall minimum effort. And Intel? Nobody knows what they'll be doing next, but they ain't even remotely playing in the red/green arena to begin with.