Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB vs GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 9060 XT 16GB outperforms RTX 3050 8 GB by an impressive 65% 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 | 204 | 69 |
| Place by popularity | 10 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 60.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.37 | no data |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | RDNA 4 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) | 2 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1552 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1777 MHz | 2530 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,000 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 142.2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.098 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
| Tensor Cores | 80 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | no data |
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 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 242 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | - |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 80−85
−73.8%
| 139
+73.8%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
−85.7%
| 65
+85.7%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−79.2%
| 43
+79.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.11 | no data |
| 1440p | 7.11 | no data |
| 4K | 10.38 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
This is how RTX 3050 8 GB and RX 9060 XT 16GB compete in popular games:
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 74% faster in 1080p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 86% faster in 1440p
- RX 9060 XT 16GB is 79% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.77 | 49.03 |
| Recency | 4 January 2022 | 2 January 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 4 nm |
RX 9060 XT 16GB has a 64.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB 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.
