AMD Announces Radeon RX 9060 XT Graphics Card, Claims "Fastest Under $350"

[-]

mockingbird-@reddit (OP)

I found it suspicious that AMD was comparing the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB to the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8GB at 1440p.

This suggests the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is not as fast as the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB. (Either that or AMD's marketing team is incompetent, which isn't all that surprising.)

Then again, it doesn't need to when 20% cheaper.

[-]

And the 8GB version will not perform the same as the 16gb. At 1440p. So essentially even when its the same chip with a different vram capacity, it's still a different graphics card. It may look like it isn't. But it very much is.

[-]

Schmigolo@reddit

it doesn't need to when it is 20% cheaper

If it really is.

[-]

Judge_Bredd_UK@reddit

I was really disappointed with AMD and the MSRP fiasco, I have a 7900XTX so I'm fine but there was a point at launch where I could have sold my card and it would easily cover the 9070xt at MSRP but it stayed at the advertised price for about 15 seconds then shot up and I wasn't interested anymore.

[-]

Jeep-Eep@reddit

There's more competition here so it may not get as bananas as higher up. Down there, there's like 5 different cards worth the time of day (5060/ti 16 gig, XT and non-xt and the b570.) Higher up, there's only 3 cards.

[-]

zerinho6@reddit

That's the thing, if it sticks to the MSRP then it is THE killer card for low end, beating even Intel offer (by performance). If the prices increase like with the 9070 tho then idk what to think about AMD at this point.

[-]

NGGKroze@reddit

I think it's done because the 8GB 5060Ti will hit VRAM limits in some benches, so AMD can claim huge uplifts compared to it, while with 5060Ti 16GB that is not an option so they can't claim the huge uplifts.

So AMD is lying hard again and is being disingenuous, but looks like there isn't as much outrage as Nvidia gets, because "AMD is your friend, they are the underdog, support them"

[-]

skinlo@reddit

You've made up a scenario in your head to be angry against.

[-]

Vb_33@reddit

He's right that 1440p ultra is punishing to a 5060ti 8GB compared to a 5060ti 16gb.

[-]

hsien88@reddit

So you are saying 8gb is fine since apparently it can run 40 games in 1440p ultra setting with ray tracing enabled without memory bottlenecking? It’s so obvious AMD is doing shady comparison with support from HWU.

[-]

teutorix_aleria@reddit

with support from HWU.

LoL you guys really think theres some anti nvida cabal where a youtuber sits next to the CEOs of intel and AMD

[-]

hsien88@reddit

Bro HWU literally gets paid from AMD for the various sponsorships he got (same with LTT).

[-]

skinlo@reddit

Bro it's possible to be sponsored by a company and not be biased. Hardware Unboxed have done enough negative videos about AMD over the years.

[-]

ResponsibleJudge3172@reddit

AMD graphs have never been trustworthy in the first place. They had 6800XT generally higher than 3090 at 1440p and equal at 4K

They had 7900XTX much faster than it ended up being, fueling hype that it would by 5%-10% below 4090, etc

[-]

aminorityofone@reddit

Same with Nvidia graphs and Intel graphs. It has always been wait for reviews. If anything Nvidia has been the most egregious of this issue lately.

[-]

noiserr@reddit

All companies do this. They show their product in best light. AMD has had some good showings too so it's hit and miss. Like 9070xt ended up being pretty accurate.

In this case there is obviously a red flag not to the veracity of what's shown, but of the stuff they didn't show. There is obviously a big opportunity to cherry pick games which are memory capacity bottle necked.

This is why we should always wait for 3rd party benchmarks.

[-]

Alive_Worth_2032@reddit

Ye, there simply are to many AMD/Nvidia outliers to trust anything from hand picked vendor games. You could prove just about anything by picking outliers.

[-]

BeerGogglesFTW@reddit

HUB said in their video, they matched closest price, not specs. Which I guess if you're going to show one... Idk.

HUB asked about 16GB comparison, AMD said "similar performance." So, wait and see.

[-]

hsien88@reddit

lol how does that make sense, it's very obvious it's tested under the memory constraint settings (you can see 1440p ultra settings in both). Wouldn't you want to make you card look better by comparing to an even more expensive card if performance is the same?

[-]

imwasneverspecial@reddit

They'd rather show graphs with better performance than say 20% cheaper, which is the more effective messaging

[-]

ThankGodImBipolar@reddit

It obviously makes sense, even if it’s also misleading.

[-]

LosingReligions523@reddit

lol how does that make sense

Because they are comparing price to price now some artificial number as name of gpu to other gpu name.

5060 16GB does not cost $350

[-]

work-school-account@reddit

Matching prices makes sense. Cherrypicking settings to show how a 16 GB card beats an 8 GB card is dumb (although the fact that there's an 8 GB card at this price point is dumb as well, to be fair).

[-]

GARGEAN@reddit

>some artificial number as name of gpu to other gpu name.

They LITERALLY changed their naming scheme this generation solely for the purpose of comparing GPU name to other GPU name.

[-]

Schmigolo@reddit

They definitely should've done both if it didn't make their card look worse.

[-]

bubblesort33@reddit

I would say the comparison of the 5060ti to 9060xt, will be worse than the 5070ti vs 9070ti comparison. If you look at core count and be frequency the 5060ti is like 58% of what the 5070ti is. The 9060xt is more like 52% of what the 9070xt is. Probably half way between the 5060 and 5060ti.

[-]

HyruleanKnight37@reddit

If you look at their expertly made graphs then you will (with some effort) see some of the games mentioned that actually do run fine on the 5060Ti 8GB at native 1440p max. If the 9060XT 16GB is matching the 5060Ti 8GB in these games, I think it's safe to assume it's quite close to the 5060Ti 16GB as well.

Of course take their numbers with a truck load of salt, as always. AMD is known to fudge with numbers too.

[-]

shugthedug3@reddit

This suggests the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is not as fast as the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB.

Did people think it would be? there's nothing in the specs that suggested it would be.

[-]

NoStomach6266@reddit

It was always reported that the 9060XT would be 7700XT performance and no more.

When the 5060ti 16GB slotted inbetween the 7700XT and 7800XT, it seems like it was pretty clearly going to be a bit better.

AMD using the 8GB card as a comparison, and mostly using AMD favoured titles to compare, is probably still the lesser of the two evils when we consider Nvidia comparing no frame gen to multi-frame gen - but it's still scummy.

And after the price debacle with the 9070s, I don't trust the price announcement until it's out and the first wave of stock is gone.

[-]

shugthedug3@reddit

Yeah I always ffigured they were going to release something on par or a little better than 5060 but not the Ti.

Does make for a pretty giant gap in the lineup though, 9070XT seems great but super expensive.

[-]

SirActionhaHAA@reddit

There's either a larger price diff or a larger perf diff because the 5060ti 16gb is $429.

[-]

fatstackinbenj@reddit

People will look at this and say the 9060 XT is a 1080p card.

[-]

sharkyzarous@reddit

Good luck with finding one at 350USD.

[-]

Vb_33@reddit

Maybe all the waiting has helped them stock up. The 5060 is still available at MSRP and has been since launch unlike the 5060ti and up. And the 5060 is a better received card than the 5060ti 8gb.

[-]

mockingbird-@reddit (OP)

AMD told ComputerBase that the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is a "few percent" behind the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB.

So, there you have it: straight from the horse's mouth.

[-]

mockingbird-@reddit (OP)

The 8GB model seemingly exists only to upsell consumers to buy the 16GB model.

AMD: "Here is the POS model for $299, but for only $50 more, you can get the one you want!"

[-]

shawnkfox@reddit

People constantly claim on this forum that 8GB VRAM is plenty because they only play old games @ 1080p. IDK, maybe they are right, but imo buying any GPU with 8GB right now seems like a terrible financial decision because the lifespan is very limited. A 12 or 16GB card is going to be useful for years longer than an 8GB card will and you'll easily get back the extra money you spent if/when you go to resell it.

I don't blame either company for selling 8GB cards, but I do have a massive issue with using the same model number for them. There will be a lot of people who check benchmarks and go out and buy the 8GB cards because they don't know any better.

[-]

nekogami87@reddit

Like the 9070, the $50 price difference might not make sense in the US in a state without sales tax, but abroad, that difference can translate to up to the equivalent of $100 diff, which starts the matter as you go lower in the stack.

[-]

Jeep-Eep@reddit

That would be like only 20% more then my old 590 in CAD for the 16 gig model for easily a doubling if not more if I get my math right.

Actually quite decent in this market.

[-]