Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB vs RX 6850M XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6850M XT with Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, including specs and performance data.

RX 6850M XT
2022
12 GB GDDR6, 165 Watt
41.76
RX 9060 XT 8 GB
2025, $299
8 GB GDDR6, 150 Watt
47.05
+12.7%

9060 XT 8 GB outperforms 6850M XT by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10980
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data95.47
Power efficiency19.7124.43
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNavi 22Navi 44
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 January 2022 (4 years ago)4 June 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores25602048
Core clock speed2321 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speed2581 MHz3130 MHz
Number of transistors17,200 million29,700 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt150 Watt
Texture fill rate413.0400.6
Floating-point processing power13.21 TFLOPS25.64 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs160128
Ray Tracing Cores4032
L0 Cache640 KB512 KB
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache3 MB4 MB
L3 Cache96 MB32 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth384.0 GB/s322.3 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.12.2
Vulkan1.31.3

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RX 6850M XT 41.76
RX 9060 XT 8 GB 47.05
+12.7%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX 6850M XT 17470
Samples: 87
RX 9060 XT 8 GB 19684
+12.7%
Samples: 1246

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD137150−160
+9.5%
1440p8595−100
+11.8%
4K5760−65
+5.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.99
1440pno data3.15
4Kno data4.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 120−130 140−150
+8.5%
Counter-Strike 2 230−240 250−260
+8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 160 180−190
+12.5%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 120−130 140−150
+8.5%
Battlefield 5 130−140 150−160
+7.9%
Counter-Strike 2 230−240 250−260
+8.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 136 150−160
+10.3%
Far Cry 5 109 120−130
+10.1%
Fortnite 180−190 200−210
+10.5%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
Valorant 240−250 270−280
+8.9%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 120−130 140−150
+8.5%
Battlefield 5 130−140 150−160
+7.9%
Counter-Strike 2 230−240 250−260
+8.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 106 110−120
+3.8%
Dota 2 113 120−130
+6.2%
Far Cry 5 105 110−120
+4.8%
Far Cry 6 104 110−120
+5.8%
Fortnite 180−190 200−210
+10.5%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 126 140−150
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 116 130−140
+12.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 198 220−230
+11.1%
Valorant 240−250 270−280
+8.9%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 150−160
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 87 95−100
+9.2%
Dota 2 95 100−105
+5.3%
Far Cry 5 102 110−120
+7.8%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 180−190
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122 130−140
+6.6%
Valorant 240−250 270−280
+8.9%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 180−190 200−210
+10.5%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 110−120 120−130
+8.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 290−300 300−310
+0.3%
Far Cry 6 87 95−100
+9.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 89 100−105
+12.4%
Metro Exodus 68 75−80
+10.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+8.6%
Valorant 280−290 300−310
+6%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 110−120
+3.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 55 60−65
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 99 110−120
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130 130−140
+5.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85 90−95
+7.1%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 110−120 120−130
+5.3%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 30−35 35−40
+2.9%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 55−60
+7.8%
Far Cry 6 35−40 40−45
+8.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 99 110−120
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 35−40 40−45
+2.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72 80−85
+11.1%
Valorant 250−260 290−300
+12%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70 75−80
+10.3%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 55−60
+7.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 26 27−30
+3.8%
Dota 2 78 85−90
+9%
Far Cry 5 68 75−80
+10.3%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 90−95
+8.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65 65−70
+6.6%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 55−60 60−65
+5.3%

This is how RX 6850M XT and RX 9060 XT 8 GB compete in popular games:

  • RX 9060 XT 8 GB is 9% faster in 1080p
  • RX 9060 XT 8 GB is 12% faster in 1440p
  • RX 9060 XT 8 GB is 5% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 41.76 47.05
Recency 4 January 2022 4 June 2025
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 150 Watt

RX 6850M XT has a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RX 9060 XT 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6850M XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6850M XT is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 258 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6850M XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 500 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6850M XT or Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.