Positioning & Architecture
The Radeon RX 9060 XT is AMD's second graphics card launch this year, the third if you count RX 9070 XT and RX 9070 as two separate launches, even though both released on the same day and are based on the same underlying chip. While the RX 9070-series introduced AMD's high-end offerings this generation, the RX 9060 XT is targeted at budget-conscious gamers in the sweet spot segment around $300-$400. Today, AMD launches both the RX 9060 XT 16 GB and RX 9060 XT 8 GB. Unfortunately, since it wasn't possible to get an 8 GB model for review, everyone focused on 16 GB models. I'll buy one of course as soon as possible, to get you the crucial info how it performs.

Unlike other launches, AMD has changed the embargo rules. Today, only reviews for cards seeded by AMD can go live—OC or non-OC, doesn't matter. Tomorrow, all the remaining reviews, for cards provided by AMD's partners can go live, we have three more reviews coming up. Sales of the cards will begin tomorrow, too.

All reviews: ASRock RX 9060 XT Steel Legend, ASUS RX 9060 XT Prime, Sapphire RX 9060 XT Nitro+, XFX RX 9060 XT Swift

With the RX 9060 XT, AMD is introducing their new Navi 44 graphics processor to their lineup. This is basically half the Navi 48, which powers the RX 9070-series. You get 2048 GPU cores, 64 ROPs, 128 TMUs. Surprisingly, the number of GPU cores on the RX 7600 XT is the same, but the new card is much faster. As mentioned before, the RX 9060 XT comes in both 8 GB and 16 GB variants, all using 128-bit GDDR6 memory. As fabrication process, AMD is using TSMC's 4 nanometer node, while Blackwell is still on the same 5 nm process as Ada.

Performance
Averaged over our 2025 Q2 test suite, we're seeing pretty good numbers from the RX 9060 XT. At 1080p, Full HD, it is just 3% slower than the more expensive RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB. Compared to the RTX 5060 non-Ti, the performance uplift is a solid 11%. Once we up the resolution to 1440p, the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is still 3% faster, but the 8 GB model drops a bit, and just matches the RX 9060 XT, the RTX 5060 is now 15% behind. Compared to last-generation's RX 7600 XT, the RX 9060 XT is 37% faster, 43% at 1440p. While I would definitely say that this is a 1080p card, 1440p is definitely in reach, certainly in older games, and also once you enable performance enhancing features like FSR upscaling and frame generation. Some of the most demanding titles, or when RT is enabled will require you to use FSR, too, to get a good gaming experience.

Thanks to its factory overclock, and increased power limit, the ASUS Prime OC gains around 1% in real-life performance over the base RX 9060 XT. More powerful models—which we'll review tomorrow—achieve better out-of-the-box performance.

Ray Tracing & Neural Rendering
While NVIDIA has been a pioneer when it comes to the introduction of the ray tracing technology, AMD hasn't really been pushing things here. This changes with RDNA 4. The new GPU is considerably faster at ray tracing, which fixes one of the biggest drawbacks of RDNA 3. In RT, the Radeon RX 9060 XT is essentially on par with the NVIDIA RTX 5060 Ti, showing a similar 3% margin as it does in rasterization—AMD has caught up! Would you have expected this? The gen-over-gen RT performance gain when compared to the RX 7600 XT is a massive +64%—very impressive. If you look at individual games, there can be big differences, which means these averages will vary from publication to publication, depending on their game mix.

VRAM
The RX 9060 XT comes with both 8 GB and 16 GB VRAM. So far, we could only test the 16 GB model and with that much memory, VRAM is definitely a non-issue. Not a single game in our test suite will run into trouble with 16 GB VRAM, not with ray tracing, not with path tracing. That definitely makes 16 GB the more future-proof option, but it's also an expensive insurance policy. While 8 GB is definitely not enough for a lot of scenarios, I still think it can be a reasonable compromise if you want to save cost and are willing to dial textures down a notch, or use upscaling, which you'll probably have to use anyway. I went through this in a lot of detail in my RTX 5060/5060 Ti 8 GB reviews—you will have to find optimal settings, which thankfully the NVIDIA App can do automatically. Historically, it has also been the case that AMD's memory management isn't as good as NVIDIA's, which probably means that the 8 GB 9060 XT will have a harder time dealing with memory shortages than NVIDIA's card. Navi 44 does have one ace up its sleeve though—it uses a PCIe Gen 5 x16 bus interface, which offers twice the bandwidth of the RTX 5060 and 5060 Ti. Although this may not impact general gaming, it could be beneficial in scenarios where VRAM is limited, as it may speed up memory transfers over the bus into system memory. We should have more information on this soon.

I still think that 12 GB would have been a good middle choice, as that's good enough for virtually all titles at 1080p and 1440p, but more economical. Both AMD and NVIDIA designed their GPUs with a 128-bit memory bus, which means four memory chips, which each connect using a 32-bit interface. On the RX 9060 XT 16 GB, AMD doubled up the memory configuration to eight chips, so that two each share a 32-bit interface (they do not use larger capacity chips). A 192-bit bus would certainly be possible, but that would have required a wider bus design in the GPU, with support for the extra bus width, more pins in the design, and a more complex PCB, etc. In the near future, memory chips with a 3 GB capacity are expected, which could solve this problem and enable 12 GB cards with 128-bit memory. More memory does not automagically turn into additional performance in every single game—you have to run out of VRAM in the first place.

FSR Upscaling & Frame Generation
With RDNA 4, AMD is introducing FSR 4—the newest version of their upscaling technology. The new tech is supported in a good number of games already, and it can be enabled in all games supporting FSR 3.1 through a driver override mechanism. In my testing this worked well, and the UI is easy to use. I like how the in-game overlay tells you when FSR 4 is active, or warns you when you forgot to enable FSR 3.1 in the game. Image quality is greatly improved, the image stability is fantastic, almost on par with DLSS Transformer, which still remains the better option though. Rendered details in textures are much better than FSR 3 now, too, and FSR 4 in Quality mode is comparable to native, sometimes better. Just to clarify, AMD has not made any improvements to frame generation, you still only get the option to double your framerate. With Blackwell, NVIDIA has introduced multi-frame generation. This feature allows you to triple or quadruple the framerate, with good results. Especially in this segment, I don't think that's a significant advantage, MFG increases the latency even more, meaning you need a higher base FPS, which can be difficult to achieve on these relatively weak GPUs.

AMD does have AFMF (AMD Fluid Motion Frames), which is a driver-level frame-generation technology that doesn't require game support. It is possible to stack in-game frame generation and AFMF, and it works without major issues—still a somewhat exotic approach. AFMF is still useful, especially in titles that are capped at 60 FPS—you can still enable AFMF to game run smoother. It's also a solution to the somewhat limited FSR Frame Generation support in games. When it comes to game support, NVIDIA is definitely king, with basically every game supporting DLSS, a major selling point for the green team.

I tested a bunch of games, and you'll generally be fine with titles supporting FSR 3, but older games with FSR 2 will be problematic, because the upscaling quality just isn't that good. Playable? Definitely—but once you've seen NVIDIA DLSS Transformer in action you'll be hooked, and only FSR 4 can achieve comparable image quality.

Physical Design, Heat & Noise
The ASUS Prime is a cost-optimized variant of the RX 9060 XT. and it performed very well in all our thermal tests. With just 30 dBA at full load it is "quiet" and runs extremely low temperatures of 72°C hot spot. Thanks to the dual BIOS, you can reduce the noise levels even further. Once the quiet BIOS is activated, the card is basically inaudible at full load with just 23 dBA. It is so quiet that you'll have to walk up right next to it on an open bench, and focus on it, to make out what little noise it emits—in a quiet room with everything else turned off and a PC with passive components!

Power Consumption
Power consumption of the RX 9060 XT is good, around 170 W, which is comparable to the RTX 5060 Ti—NVIDIA has lost most of their lead here, too. Just like on the RX 9070-series, I'm happy to confirm that AMD has finally fixed the increased power consumption in multi-monitor and video playback. In an unexpected reversal, NVIDIA is failing here now, with their top three Blackwell GPUs currently showing higher than expected power consumption in non-gaming states. The ASUS Prime uses a little bit extra power, because it comes with an increased power limit, but it's not a significant difference. Every half-decent PSU should be able to power the RX 9060 XT—important for gamers upgrading an older computer.

Overclocking
Overclocking worked very well on the RX 9060 XT. The ASUS Prime gained 10% in real-life performance, which is more than we usually see. Bumping the power limit made only a small difference. The competing RTX 5060 Ti Blackwell SKUs generally overclock a little bit better even, but I don't think the difference is big enough to affect your buying decision. While OC isn't completely trivial it's easy enough to do, once you know what to look out for. I also like that AMD continues giving us the Hot Spot thermal sensor, which is crucial to diagnose issues with thermal paste or cooler alignment. Also, the OC slider limits are high enough to not result in any artificial limitations.

Pricing & Alternatives
AMD has set an ambitious MSRP of $350 for the RX 9060 XT 16 GB, and the 8 GB model comes at only $300. For the ASUS Prime OC, in the last few days, we got price points of $350, $430, $350 and $360 in that order. While of course I'd love to see $360 for the Prime OC, this seems quite unrealistic. Every single board partner that I talked to—who was willing to discuss pricing—said that the MSRP of $350 is a fantasy, and it will be impossible to reach without kickbacks from AMD. Usually such campaigns are limited to a certain number of GPUs sold, or a certain percentage of the overall volume, so prices won't last. I guess we'll know more soon, but realistically, I'd expect the RX 9060 XT 16 GB to sell for $400+, and the 8 GB model for $350+, possibly higher, depending on demand.

At $350, the RX 9060 XT 16 GB would be an excellent alternative to the RX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which currently sells for $430. The $80 price difference is big enough to accept the one big compromise you'll have to make as a RDNA 4 owner—the lack of DLSS Transformer. No doubt, FSR 4 is good, and pretty close, but it's just not able to match NVIDIA's huge ecosystem, game support and visual quality. Personally, I'd pay $50 extra for this capability, in this segment, so AMD is definitely on the right track with $350. At $400 however, I'd probably lean towards the $430 5060 Ti, and at $420 or more I'd definitely spend a little bit extra for the NVIDIA option. Multi-frame generation doesn't matter as much, because your base FPS will be relatively low, so the added latency will be noticeable in many titles, still, having the option is nice, of course, it's not like you're forced to use the feature.

If I was gaming on 1080p only, I'd probably consider the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, if it was priced at $350 and below. At its current $380 price point, I'd probably rather just get a $350 RX 9060 XT 16 GB—for the extra VRAM peace of mind, or save a bit more for the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB. If money is tight, which means you should expect to make compromises, the $300 RX 9060 XT 8 GB could be a viable choice, our upcoming review will have all the details. It will also tell us whether NVIDIA's RTX 5060 8 GB for the same $300 is the better pick. In terms of last-generation cards, the RTX 3070 could be interesting, if you can find one at around $300. A used RX 6800-series card will probably be too expensive, don't bother unless it's $300 too, and be aware of the much lower RT performance. The same is true for RX 7000-series cards. There is no way I'd pick a RX 7700 XT, unless I could get it for $300—the lack of FSR 4 and lower RT perf are the main reasons here. RTX 3080? 10 GB VRAM could be good enough, the wide 320-bit memory helps, you do get DLSS Transformer—maybe, if the price is right.

While there's a GeForce RTX 5050 on the horizon, I don't think this will have any impact on the segment of the RX 9060 XT. There have been rumors about a RX 9060 non-XT, I probably wouldn't wait for that either. Maybe Intel has an ace up their sleeves, their bigger Arc Battlemage cards could add more competition, but the release date is completely unknown, some rumors say that those cards have been canceled, others say Q3 or Q4.

Awards will be considered once we know actual market pricing