Doesn't take much to actually read "Only 8 GB VRAM, requires manual settings optimization in many games" in that screenshot. Which is being very kind.
PowerColor Radeon RX 9060 XT Reaper 8 GB Review
We're taking a look at the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which comes with only half the memory size of the 16 GB models, but is at least $50 cheaper. Data from the review suggests that NVIDIA's memory management is much less efficient than the one used on RDNA 4, giving AMD the upper hand.www.techpowerup.com
It's worth an actual read rather than just the pre-judged "8GB is bad" mantra that many here have.
The pricing is still an issue - you'd be mad not to spend the little extra and get a 16GB model. If this was £239 or whatever then it would be far more attractive for those truly on a tight budget. As always there's rarely bad products, just bad pricing.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
*** The AMD RDNA 4 Rumour Mill ***
- Thread starter humbug
- Start date
I agree with this overall but do caveat as a former system builder that some individuals and almost every OEM aims for money saving, but for very different reasons. So there is a market for these low cost GPUs because they are fine if you want a cheapish 1080p desktop, or a reasonable cheap gaming laptop.
The problem we have is Nvidia and sometimes AMD have been giving unnecessarily cut down amounts of VRAM on otherwise decent spec GPUs for years. Normally a GPU is balanced enough that it runs out of grunt long before lack of VRAM becomes an issue. These GPUs are already at the serious compromise on settings stage.
The problem we have is Nvidia and sometimes AMD have been giving unnecessarily cut down amounts of VRAM on otherwise decent spec GPUs for years. Normally a GPU is balanced enough that it runs out of grunt long before lack of VRAM becomes an issue. These GPUs are already at the serious compromise on settings stage.
And doesn't take much to actually read the review text not the summary which explains which settings were changed. Settings you'd expect to have to change on an entry level card regardless (even on a 16gb card some of the settings would still need to be changed).
I don't know where the mindset of expecting graphics cards to play everything without touching any settings came from? In the past it was a necessity on every entry level/mid range card.
A question for everyone - if the 8Gb was called the 9050XT and priced at £239 would you still have a problem with it?
The point was that your own example was at odds with your point. They literally listed the VRAM allocation as a con. You should not be compromising at 1080p in 2025 unless you're using iGPU. Imagine how it'll be in a couple of years.
If it was called something different, priced at £200 and had a GPU that wasn't throttled purely by the poor VRAM allocation - no.
I honestly don't understand the defence of VRAM stagnation. There is no drawback to having enough for the GPU to actually perform. It actively benefits everybody.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,895
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Agreed but if 8gb never existed, I doubt people will riot on the streets demanding nvidia and and to sell 8gb card variant
No but they'd probably demand a cheaper card if entry level cards started at £315, and the 8GB is, err, £45 cheaper than that 
It fills a gap in the market, not for the majority of enthusiasts in a PC forum and it should have a different name but it exists and people are buying it.
It fills a gap in the market, not for the majority of enthusiasts in a PC forum and it should have a different name but it exists and people are buying it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
There's nothing wrong with an 8GB card at the right price. The main issue is that Nvidia and AMD have watered down card models that didn't need to be watered down by creating them alongside a 16GB version that is clearly more capable.
If the 9060XT 8GB was just a 9060 and the 5060Ti 8GB didn't exist (the 5060 already exists) then I assume a lot more people would be ok with it. A price reduction should happen too though.
If the 9060XT 8GB was just a 9060 and the 5060Ti 8GB didn't exist (the 5060 already exists) then I assume a lot more people would be ok with it. A price reduction should happen too though.
FSR4 coming to PS5 Pro console, also Sony is working hard on assisting amd with the design of next gen GPUs
wccftech.com
AMD FSR 4 Confirmed to Be Coming to PS5 Pro in 2026; Big Chunks of RDNA 5 Are Being Designed Through Engineering Partnership with Sony
It was confirmed that the full implementation of the AMD FSR 4 algorithm will be available to PS5 Pro developers starting in 2026.
wccftech.com
Last edited:
apparently AMD new drivers have increased performance by up to 27% in some games and overall by 9% @1440p.
wccftech.com
AMD's Latest Drivers Improve Radeon RX 9070 XT's Performance By Up To 27%; GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Is Now Slower Overall
AMD has rolled out its latest Adrenalin Driver 25.6.3, which helped the Radeon RX 9070 XT reach new heights in performance, leaving behind the RTX 5070 Ti.
wccftech.com
apparently AMD new drivers have increased performance by up to 27% in some games and overall by 9% @1440p.
AMD's Latest Drivers Improve Radeon RX 9070 XT's Performance By Up To 27%; GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Is Now Slower Overall
AMD has rolled out its latest Adrenalin Driver 25.6.3, which helped the Radeon RX 9070 XT reach new heights in performance, leaving behind the RTX 5070 Ti.
Link seems to only shows rdna4 performance, would be interesting to see if rdna3 also benefits
Last edited:
apparently AMD new drivers have increased performance by up to 27% in some games and overall by 9% @1440p.
AMD's Latest Drivers Improve Radeon RX 9070 XT's Performance By Up To 27%; GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Is Now Slower Overall
AMD has rolled out its latest Adrenalin Driver 25.6.3, which helped the Radeon RX 9070 XT reach new heights in performance, leaving behind the RTX 5070 Ti.
Or even the 9060 non XT
I don't care what they call the cards. Price/performance determines acceptance.
Last edited:
apparently AMD new drivers have increased performance by up to 27% in some games and overall by 9% @1440p.
AMD's Latest Drivers Improve Radeon RX 9070 XT's Performance By Up To 27%; GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Is Now Slower Overall
AMD has rolled out its latest Adrenalin Driver 25.6.3, which helped the Radeon RX 9070 XT reach new heights in performance, leaving behind the RTX 5070 Ti.
AMD's marketing team is pretty bad to not advertise improvements in their driver notes. Nvidia usually shouts about it even if they get 5% extra performance in a single game.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,624
- Location
- Cornwall
In AMD's defence, who really cares about small gains?
Word of month is fine, also AMD marketing (especially the Radeon side) would balls it up somehow, so prob for the best they stay quiet.
PC options tweaking has been a thing for PC gaming since its inception and its pretty much always standard for any actual PC gamer to go into the options settings to tweak settings.
The amount of people who don't know what DOF is and what a lot of settings do is embarrassing.
Even if I had a 5090, I would still tweak a lot of settings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
Wouldn't call 9% a small gain. Would you call 9% a small pay rise at work?
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,274
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,624
- Location
- Cornwall
I think it depends on context. 9% of £100,000,000 is a lot, 9% of a small pizza is not.
If I had 150fps before and now have 164fps it makes little difference as my monitor's refresh rate is 120fps, so I'll likely notice little to no difference (maybe a few 1% lows might have been below 120fps).
If I had 45fps before and now have 49fps, it's not making much difference.
Now I'd imagine most people will have tweaked their graphics settings so their fps is at a range that's acceptable to them, I'm not sure 9% is going to cause too many people to adjust their graphics settings and gain a massively different experience.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing obviously, just that I can understand why they've not bothered to make a big thing about it. Besides which there have been a few drivers since release so it likely they didn't deliver the 9% in one driver, more likely it was smaller gains over time.