Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
9060 XT 16 GB outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 3482% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1059 | 76 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 47 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | 82.73 |
| Power efficiency | 0.69 | 23.10 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | G92B | Navi 44 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 4 June 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 118086% better value for money than GTS 250.
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 cores | 128 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 29,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 44.93 | 400.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | 25.64 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | 322.3 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 Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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 HD | 4−5
−3875%
| 159
+3875%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−7000%
| 71
+7000%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4300%
| 44
+4300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.75
−2167%
| 2.19
+2167%
|
| 1440p | 199.00
−3948%
| 4.92
+3948%
|
| 4K | 199.00
−2409%
| 7.93
+2409%
|
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 2167% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 3948% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 2409% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 48.72 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 4 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 160 Watt |
GTS 250 has 7% lower power consumption.
RX 9060 XT 16 GB, on the other hand, has a 3482% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1275% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
