AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB vs. Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB

With AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB, RDNA 4 finally lands in the mainstream space, bringing next-gen silicon to those unwilling to splurge beyond $350. Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16GB, on the other hand, has already planted its Blackwell flag, offering a more premium spin on mainstream models that ramps up features, power, and price in equal measure.

On paper, both are firmly positioned for 1080p and 1440p gaming. Each packs up to 16GB of VRAM and keeps power draw comfortably in check, yet their philosophies differ. AMD leans into clock speed, while Nvidia flexes its more-advanced ray tracing accelerators. They’re built for the same audience but speak to different priorities.

So, what’s the smarter spend? With $79 in it between them, the value conversation is more relevant than ever. We’ve compared specs and architecture side-by-side to help you figure out which budget GPU is better for your next build, from raw efficiency to feature-rich finesse.

Specs

At the heart of Radeon RX 9060 XT is Navi 44, AMD’s latest entry-level GPU design built on TSMC’s 4nm N4P process. It packs 29.7 billion transistors into a 199mm² die, out-muscling the 21.9 billion inside Nvidia’s GB206 (itself also fabbed on TSMC 4nm). Despite having a larger die and greater transistor density, AMD’s chip remains notably power-conscious, with a total board power of 160W compared to Nvidia’s 180W.

	RX 9060 XT 16GB	RTX 5060 Ti 16GB	Ratio
Released	June 2025	Apr 2025	–
Codename	RDNA 4	Blackwell	–
GPU	Navi 44	GB206	–
Process	TSMC N4P (4nm)	TSMC N4 (4nm)	–
Transistors	29.7bn	21.9bn	1.36
Die size	199mm2	181mm²	1.10
Shaders	2,048	4,608	0.44
Boost clock	3.13GHz	2.57GHz	1.22
SM/CU count	32 of 32	36 of 36	0.89
RT accelerators	32 (3rd Gen)	36 (4th Gen)	0.89
AI accelerators	64 (2nd Gen)	144 (5th Gen)	0.44
ROPs	64	48	1.33
Memory	16GB	16GB	1.00
Memory type	GDDR6	GDDR7	–
Memory clock	20Gb/s	28Gb/s	0.71
Memory interface	128-bit (PCIe 5.0 x16)	128-bit (PCIe 5.0 x8)	1.00
Memory bandwidth	320GB/s	448GB/s	0.71
Board power	160W	180W	0.89
Launch MSRP	$349	$429	0.81

On the compute side, RX 9060 XT houses 2,048 shaders across 32 compute units, while Nvidia’s card more than doubles the count with 4,608 shaders spread across 36 streaming multiprocessors. That sounds like a crushing win for Nvidia, but architectural efficiency and boost clocks tell a more nuanced story. AMD’s GPU hits a boost frequency of 3.13GHz, a full 22% higher than RTX 5060 Ti’s 2.57GHz, helping offset its leaner shader count in many scenarios.

Real-time ray tracing remains an area where Nvidia leads on maturity and performance. RTX 5060 Ti deploys 36 fourth-gen RT cores and 144 fifth-gen AI accelerators, offering deeper integration with DLSS 4 and multi-frame generation. AMD fights back with 32 third-gen RT units. and 64 second-gen AI cores which power FSR 4.

Memory, at least, is mostly on equal footing. Both cards feature 16GB of VRAM on a 128-bit bus, but Nvidia’s choice of GDDR7 running at 28Gb/s comfortably outpaces AMD’s 20Gb/s GDDR6. That translates to a bandwidth advantage of 448GB/s versus 320GB/s. It’s a spec that won’t show immediate gains in all games, but high-speed memory will certainly aid more intensive workloads and higher-resolution texture streaming. 8GB variants are available for both models but won’t perform the same in scenarios where VRAM counts.

Interface support is a subtler story. While both use a 128-bit memory bus, RX 9060 XT 16GB connects over a full PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, whereas Nvidia sticks to PCIe 5.0 x8. The latter could result in bottlenecks on older systems, particularly those rocking motherboards with PCIe 3.0 expansion slots and it’s worth bearing in mind if you’re in such a boat.

Ultimately, Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is a value-first proposition, delivering solid raster performance, and ample memory for just $349. RTX 5060 Ti counters with better feature depth, faster memory, and far more robust AI and ray tracing chops, but you’ll pay $79 more for the privilege. Whether those extras are worth the cost depends entirely on what you want from your next build: streamlined power on a budget or forward-looking versatility.

Performance

Both RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB have spent a stint in the Club386 test bench to show off what they can do in as supportive an environment as possible. Yes, it’s unreasonable to pair a high-end CPU like Ryzen 9 7950X3D with graphics cards of this ilk but it’s here to keeps any and all bottlenecks at bay.

Featuring 16GB buffers, both RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB are capable of running games at FHD (1080p), QHD (1440p), and even UHD (4K) in some cases. However, their respective GPUs shine brightest at less-demanding resolutions, so I’ve limited testing to the former two.

Apps & AI

3DMark Speed Way illustrates a clear gap between RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB in terms of ray tracing, as Nvidia pulls ahead by a comfortable 39% in this benchmark. However, the tables turn in the rasterised battlegrounds of 3DMark Steel Nomad, with AMD this time sitting on top with a 4% lead.

These results establish RTX 5060 Ti 16GB as a jack-of-all-trades whose primary strength lies in ray tracing, but such versatility comes at a higher price. For those that could care less about tracing rays, though, then RX 9060 XT 16GB is not only more affordable but can exceed its more-expensive competition.

The findings of these synthetic tests are broadly applicable in real-world workloads but I’ll explore how the graphics cards compare in actual games shortly.

CUDA reigns supreme in Blender, providing RTX 5060 Ti 16GB with a 185% advantage over RX 9060 XT 16GB. AMD still has plenty of work to do before it comes close to competing with Nvidia in this application.

Exploring AI performance, the race between RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB is perilously close. Running each graphics card through Geekbench AI sees a negligible 984 points separating them. Either make for a suitably powerful accelerator for FP16 compute, application compatibility and optimisations not withstanding.

As with Blender, the infancy of ROCm can create significant performance gaps relative to CUDA and the same is true running a Llama 3.1 LLM (Large Language Model) locally. AMD is making great strides at improving its stack, but so too is Nvidia.

Gaming

Assassin’s Creed Mirage has RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB at each other’s throats. At FHD and QHD there’s just two frames per second setting apart the faster of the two cards. Performance consistency is similarly close, but Nvidia clinches the win in this regard at both resolutions.

Examining this performance with a focus on price, value favours AMD. At $350, RX 9060 XT 16GB offers cost per frame values of $2.62 at FHD and $3.46 at QHD. Lower is better in this case, resulting in RTX 5060 Ti 16GB coming out worse with $3.27 and $4.17 by comparison at the same respective resolutions.

Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail scores a performance win for RTX 5060 Ti 16GB with three-digit frame rates at both FHD and QHD. That said, RX 9060 XT 16GB isn’t far behind, trailing by 7-11%, all while offering superior frame rate consistency.

Once again, MSRP sees AMD offer better value. RX 9060 XT 16GB clocks in at $2.31 per frame at FHD and $3.75 at QHD, beating RTX 5060 Ti 16GB which respectively comes in at $2.66 and $4.09.

Racing around in Forza Motorsport with all its ray traced effects expectedly creates the largest performance gap between RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB thus far. Curiously, though, while Nvidia accelerates ahead to the tune of 15% at FHD, it’s a near-photo-finish at QHD as the gap shrinks to just 6%.

A 60fps target is practically a must for most games but especially racing titles. Either graphics card is capable of passing this threshold at FHD. However, you’ll need to either turn down a few settings or employ the helping hand of FSR or DLSS upscaling at QHD.

Despite its ray tracing prowess, RTX 5060 Ti 16GB still loses out in the race for better value costing $5.57 per frame at FHD and $7.80 at QHD. Meanwhile, RX 9060 XT 16GB takes prime podium position at each resolution, at $5.21 and $6.71, respectively.

Engaging in a war of rasterisation, RTX 5060 Ti 16GB takes the performance throne in Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord. It holds dominion in the RTS-hybrid through frame rates 12-13% the better of RX 9060 XT 16GB. To be clear, though, when you’re pushing north of 200fps at FHD, you’re in for a smooth and bloody good time with either graphics card.

RX 9060 XT 16GB maintains a sharper edge in cost per frame, setting you back $1.66 at FHD and $2.48 at QHD, while RTX 5060 Ti 16GB lags behind at $1.83 and $2.68, respectively.

RX 9060 XT 16GB proves itself a crack shot running Rainbow Six Extraction, beating RTX 5060 Ti 16GB by 1-4%. Like Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord, though, performance is so high on either graphics card that it’s difficult to go wrong with either Radeon or GeForce.

Given that RX 9060 XT 16GB is the superior card in terms of frame rates and affordability, it unsurprisingly dominates in a cost per frame analysis as it comes in at $1.45 at FHD and $2.22 at QHD. It’s here we see the largest gap in value, as RTX 5060 Ti 16GB arrives at $2.22 and $2.77, respectively.

FSR & DLSS

FSR 4 is such a massive leap over what came before that AMD’s upscaler manages to hold its own against Nvidia DLSS 4 in terms of image quality. This places RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB on mostly even footing when it comes to fidelity, but performance and prevalence each play important roles in determining the worth of either feature.

There’s no avoiding the head start that DLSS 4 enjoys over FSR 4, both in terms of native support and in its ability to inject itself in place of prior versions. Cyberpunk 2077 aptly demonstrates this, enjoying the full suite of Nvidia’s enhancements while being unable to upgrade to AMD’s latest upscaler. An upcoming patch should address this but CD Projekt Red is yet to confirm what it plans to update.

FSR 4 also has no answer to DLSS Multi Frame Generation, nor does it use deep learning to generate interpolated frames. AMD promises to plug the gap on the latter front through FSR Redstone, due sometime in 2H 2025. There’s an inescapable feeling of playing catch up that slightly spoils the Radeon software package, not forgetting the lack of niceties such as RTX HDR and other tools.

Before putting FSR and DLSS to the ultimate test, courtesy of Cyberpunk 2077’s extremely demanding RT Overdrive graphics preset, it’s important to establish baseline performance. Looking at RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB frame rates, both graphics cards could certainly do with a helping hand from their upscalers.

RTX 5060 Ti 16GB fares best, managing a 30fps average at FHD but 26fps minimums don’t make for a smooth experience. Still, this is less of a slideshow than the 23fps RX 9060 XT 16GB musters at the same resolution. Neither cuts the mustard at QHD.

Turning both FSR an DLSS to ‘Quality’ sees frame rates double on both graphics cards in all but one instance. Even the exception that is RTX 5060 Ti 16GB at FHD enjoys a significant 90% uptick in performance.

RX 9060 XT 16GB comes back from the brink with a playable 44fps, but it pales in comparison to RTX 5060 Ti 16GB’s 57fps. Powerful as FSR is, it sadly can’t salvage the Radeon at QHD. By contrast, GeForce manages to keep its head above water with a 36fps average.

Both AMD and Nvidia recommend frame rates in the region of 60fps before using Single or Multi Frame Generation, in a bid to keep latency at palatable levels. RTX 5060 Ti 16GB comes closest to meeting this requirement at FHD, while RX 9060 XT 16GB is so far off to the point of making it practically ineligible for the goodness of interpolated frames.

The feature will still work regardless, of course, and gives RX 9060 XT 16GB a marked boost though latency is relatively high at either resolution. The same is true of RTX 5060 Ti 16GB at QHD, as that 116fps average through Multi Frame Generation feels like treacle. Dropping down to FHD, the experience is more palatable but less than ideal given the base frame rate.

Vitals

Neither AMD nor Nvidia have respectively produced reference designs for RX 9060 XT 16GB or RTX 5060 Ti 16GB. As such, the likes of power consumption, temperature, and noise levels will vary depending on the quality of an add-in board partner’s design.

In the case of these comparisons, I’m pitting Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB up against MSI GeForce RTX 5060 Gaming OC. These are both premium SKUs and showcase their graphics cards in the best possible light.

Despite RX 9060 XT 16GB boasting a lower board power than RTX 5060 Ti 16GB on paper, it turns out to be the hungrier graphics card under load. The Radeon pushes system power consumption up to 315W, while GeForce kicks back with 291W behind it.

RX 9060 XT 16GB keeps a cooler head than RTX 5060 Ti 16GB, albeit only by 2°C, even with more electricity running through it. The triple-fan array on Sapphire Nitro+ certainly plays a part in keeping Radeon ahead of GeForce, whose MSI Gaming OC cooler rocks a dual-fan configuration.

Both our RX 9060 XT 16GB and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB run at 33.9db, meaning they don’t kick up much of an audible fuss while under load. Given the operating temperatures above, there’s certainly headroom to tune fan curves in favour of superior acoustics.

Conclusion

$79 stand between RX 9060 XT 16GB ($349) and RTX 5060 Ti 16GB ($429). When it comes to creative applications and deep learning workloads, Nvidia’s offering is clearly worth paying more for but gaming is a more complicated conversation.

RTX 5060 Ti 16GB is expectedly more performant in most games as the pricier graphics card. However, its higher frame rates fail to reach far enough ahead to translate into better value. RX 9060 XT 16GB may not always sit above its GeForce competitor but it comes so close to matching it in most scenarios and is far more affordable.

It’s a tough call, but if you’re buying a graphics card purely for gaming and want the better value buy, I recommend going with RX 9060 XT 16GB. Just make sure you don’t mistakenly pick up the 8GB variant instead.

RTX 5060 Ti 16GB remains worth considering, particularly if you can make use of its creative capabilities. Here’s hoping that pressure from AMD prompts Nvidia to reduce the price of its GeForce. At $380~, the scales would tip in favour of GeForce.