Pick two to four cards and see them side by side across price, performance, memory, power, technologies and physical size. Every comparable row marks a winner; rows where the cards tie, or where CompareYourGPU has no data, say so instead of guessing.
Pick two to four cards. 2 of 4 selected.
Scroll the table horizontally on narrow screens. The specification column stays fixed.
| Specification | RTX 5050NVIDIA | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Price and value | ||
| Launch MSRP | Best in this row: $249 | $299 |
| Current priceCompareYourGPU does not publish a price it has not verified. | Check current price | Check current price |
| Performance per $100Performance index at 1440p per $100 of launch MSRP. | 8.8 | Best in this row: 10.4 |
| Performance | ||
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 27 | Best in this row: 38 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 22 | Best in this row: 31 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 16 | Best in this row: 22 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 21 | Best in this row: 25 |
| Measured suite average at 1440pThird-party geometric mean across their game suite, run with vendor upscaling at Quality. A different test from the estimated row below, not a check on it. | Not tested | Not tested |
| Estimated FPS at 1440pModelled estimate for a typical modern AAA game at High settings with no upscaling. Not a measurement. | 40-55 FPS | Best in this row: 55-80 FPS |
| Memory | ||
| Essentially tied | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| GDDR6 | GDDR6 | |
| Essentially tied | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| Essentially tied | 320 GB/s | 320 GB/s |
| Memory speedEssentially tied | 20 Gbps | 20 Gbps |
| Graphics processor | ||
| Architecture | Blackwell | RDNA 4 |
| GPU die | GB207 | Navi 44 |
| Only comparable within one manufacturer. | Best in this row: 2,560 | 2,048 |
| Not compared: data missing for at least one card | Data unavailable | 32 |
| 20 | Best in this row: 32 | |
| Best in this row: 80 | 64 | |
| Data unavailable | Data unavailable | |
| 2,572 MHz | 3,130 MHz | |
| Game clockNot compared: data missing for at least one cardAMD only. | Data unavailable | 2,530 MHz |
| Power | ||
| Best in this row: 130 W | 150 W | |
| Vendor figure where published, otherwise board power plus 300 W of headroom. | 550 W | Best in this row: 450 W (estimate) |
| Performance per 100 W | 16.9 | Best in this row: 20.7 |
| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| Technologies | ||
| 4th-generation RT cores | 3rd-generation ray accelerators | |
| DLSS 4 Super Resolution, DLSS Ray Reconstruction, FSR 3.1, XeSS | FSR 4, FSR 3.1, XeSS | |
| DLSS 4 Multi Frame Generation | FSR 3.1 Frame Generation, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 (driver-level) | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| Video encoder | 9th-generation NVENC with AV1 and HEVC encode | AMD Radeon media engine with AV1, HEVC and H.264 encode |
| Video decoder | 6th-generation NVDEC with AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode | AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode |
| Display outputs | ||
| DisplayPort | 3x 2.1b | 3x 2.1a |
| HDMI | 1x 2.1b | 1x 2.1b |
| USB-C | None | None |
| Physical | ||
| Length | Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Height from bracket | Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Data unavailable | Data unavailable | |
| Release | ||
| Launch date | July 2025 | June 5, 2025 |
| Generation | RTX 50 | RX 9000 |
| Availability | In production | In production |
Each category is decided by the same numbers used everywhere else on the site. A category with no clear leader says so rather than picking one.
Performance at 1440p
Performance index 31
Ray tracing
Ray tracing index 25
Price
$249
Performance per dollar
10.4 index points per $100
VRAM
Essentially tied
Memory bandwidth
Essentially tied
Efficiency
20.7 index points per 100 W
Lowest power draw
130 W board power
All six axes are normalised to a 0-100 scale so they can share one chart. Performance and ray tracing are CompareYourGPU’s estimated indices; value, VRAM, efficiency and features are each card’s standing relative to every other card tracked here.
| Criterion | RTX 5050 | RX 9060 XT 8GB |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 22 | 31 |
| Ray tracing | 21 | 25 |
| Value | 75 | 94 |
| VRAM | 36 | 36 |
| Efficiency | 37 | 66 |
| Features | 85 | 85 |
CompareYourGPU estimate aggregated from public review coverage, not a measurement.
Modelled from the performance index. Not a measured benchmark. Real results vary widely by title.
Capacity alone is not the whole story: memory bus width and bandwidth decide how much of it the GPU can actually use.
CompareYourGPU scores value from launch MSRP because it does not carry a verified live price feed. Street prices differ.
Highest estimated performance index at 1440p of the cards compared here, at 31. It is the right answer if frame rate is the only thing you are optimising for.
Delivers the most performance per dollar of the cards compared, at $299. Choose this if the difference in price matters more to you than the difference in frame rate.
Strongest ray-traced performance here, with an estimated ray tracing index of 25 at 1440p. It also carries FSR 4, which is how ray tracing becomes practical.
Carries 8 GB, the most headroom of the cards compared at 1440p. Memory is usually what dates a card before raw speed does.
Best performance per watt of the cards compared, drawing 150 W. That means less heat, quieter fans and less pressure on your power supply.
Best balance of speed, price and memory of the cards compared: 50% performance at 1440p, 30% performance per dollar, 20% memory headroom. Not necessarily the fastest.
These matchups have their own pages with additional editorial context and a comparison-specific FAQ.
$549 vs $549
The closest thing to a straight fight in the mid-range: two cards launched days apart at almost the same price, with opposite strengths. AMD brings 16 GB of memory, NVIDIA brings stronger ray tracing and the wider upscaling catalogue.
$749 vs $599
Both manufacturers' strongest mid-to-high offering, separated by $150 of launch MSRP. Both carry 16 GB. The question is whether NVIDIA's ray tracing and DLSS advantage is worth the premium over AMD's rasterisation-per-dollar.
$429 vs $349
The two 16 GB cards under $450. Both pair a modest graphics processor with a generous memory pool on a narrow 128-bit bus, and both are aimed squarely at 1080p and entry-level 1440p.
$429 vs $379
Same graphics processor, same clocks, same bandwidth, half the memory, $50 apart. This is the clearest example of a decision that specification sheets make look trivial and real-world use does not.
$1,999 vs $999
Twice the price for a large but not proportional performance gain, plus double the memory and a 215 W increase in board power. The question is whether the top of the range is a product or a statement.
$249 vs $249
The two cheapest current-generation cards, taking opposite approaches. Intel offers 12 GB and a wider memory bus; NVIDIA offers the DLSS ecosystem and lower power draw at the same price.
$299 vs $249
A $50 price gap between NVIDIA's entry 1080p card and Intel's memory-heavy alternative. One has the stronger software ecosystem, the other has 50 percent more VRAM.
$599 vs $999
A $400 gap between AMD's fastest RDNA 4 card and NVIDIA's second-tier Blackwell. Worth examining because the rasterisation gap is much smaller than the price gap, and the ray tracing gap is much larger.