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 | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Launch MSRP | $349 | Best in this row: $299 |
| Current priceCompareYourGPU does not publish a price it has not verified. | $646 | Best in this row: $561 |
| Performance per $100Performance index at 1440p per $100 of verified current price. | 5.1 | Best in this row: 5.5 |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Essentially tiedCompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | 39 | 38 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | Best in this row: 33 | 31 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | Best in this row: 26 | 22 |
| CompareYourGPU estimate, 100 = fastest card here. | Best in this row: 27 | 25 |
| Measured suite average at 1440pNot compared: data missing for at least one cardThird-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. | 53.5 FPS (ComputerBase) | Not tested |
| Estimated FPS at 1440pModelled estimate for a typical modern AAA game at High settings with no upscaling. Not a measurement. | Best in this row: 60-85 FPS | 55-80 FPS |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Best in this row: 16 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 |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Architecture | RDNA 4 | RDNA 4 |
| GPU die | Navi 44 | Navi 44 |
| Essentially tiedOnly comparable within one manufacturer. | 2,048 | 2,048 |
| Essentially tied | 32 | 32 |
| Essentially tied | 32 | 32 |
| Essentially tied | 64 | 64 |
| Data unavailable | Data unavailable | |
| 3,130 MHz | 3,130 MHz | |
| Game clockAMD only. | 2,530 MHz | 2,530 MHz |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| 160 W | Best in this row: 150 W | |
| Vendor figure where published, otherwise board power plus 300 W of headroom. | 500 W (estimate) | Best in this row: 450 W (estimate) |
| Performance per 100 WEssentially tied | 20.6 | 20.7 |
| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| 3rd-generation ray accelerators | 3rd-generation ray accelerators | |
| FSR 4, FSR 3.1, XeSS | FSR 4, FSR 3.1, XeSS | |
| FSR 3.1 Frame Generation, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 (driver-level) | FSR 3.1 Frame Generation, AMD Fluid Motion Frames 2 (driver-level) | |
| Yes | Yes | |
| Video encoder | AMD Radeon media engine with AV1, HEVC and H.264 encode | AMD Radeon media engine with AV1, HEVC and H.264 encode |
| Video decoder | AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode | AV1, HEVC and H.264 decode |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| DisplayPort | 3x 2.1a | 3x 2.1a |
| HDMI | 1x 2.1b | 1x 2.1b |
| USB-C | None | None |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Length | Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Height from bracket | Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Data unavailable | Data unavailable |
| Specification | RX 9060 XT 16GBAMD | RX 9060 XT 8GBAMD |
|---|---|---|
| Launch date | June 5, 2025 | June 5, 2025 |
| Generation | RX 9000 | 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 33
Ray tracing
Ray tracing index 27
Price
$561
Performance per dollar
5.5 index points per $100
VRAM
16 GB
Memory bandwidth
Essentially tied
Efficiency
Essentially tied
Lowest power draw
150 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 | RX 9060 XT 16GB | RX 9060 XT 8GB |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | 33 | 31 |
| Ray tracing | 27 | 25 |
| Value | 48 | 53 |
| VRAM | 80 | 36 |
| Efficiency | 66 | 66 |
| Features | 100 | 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.
A card with a verified current price is shown at that price, a dated snapshot; a card without one is shown at launch MSRP. Street prices move, so check the retailer.
The short version: the RX 9060 XT 16GB is faster, but the RX 9060 XT 8GB offers better value at the prices on record. Which of those matters more is the decision.
Based on the specifications, estimated performance indices and prices on record for these cards. How verdicts are calculated.
Highest estimated performance index at 1440p of the cards compared here, at 33. 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 $561. 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 27 at 1440p. It also carries FSR 4, which is how ray tracing becomes practical.
Carries 16 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.
$986 vs $814
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.
$1,510 vs $988
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.
$906 vs $646
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.
$906 vs $634
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.
$6,592 vs $1,973
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.
$435 vs $383
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.
$502 vs $435
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.
$988 vs $1,973
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.
