Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB vs R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, including specs and performance data.
RX 9060 XT 16 GB outperforms R9 M290X Crossfire by a whopping 178% 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 | 335 | 74 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 70 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 81.76 |
| Power efficiency | 6.58 | 22.94 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | Navi 44 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 4 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $349 |
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 | 850 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 3130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 29,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 400.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 25.64 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 62
−174%
| 170−180
+174%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.05 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
−170%
|
270−280
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−178%
|
100−105
+178%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−170%
|
200−210
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
−170%
|
270−280
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−174%
|
260−270
+174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
−173%
|
150−160
+173%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−178%
|
100−105
+178%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−173%
|
180−190
+173%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−157%
|
350−400
+157%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−170%
|
200−210
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
−170%
|
270−280
+170%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−171%
|
600−650
+171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−169%
|
280−290
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
−174%
|
260−270
+174%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
−173%
|
150−160
+173%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−178%
|
100−105
+178%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
−173%
|
180−190
+173%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−173%
|
180−190
+173%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−165%
|
130−140
+165%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−157%
|
350−400
+157%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
−170%
|
200−210
+170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
−170%
|
100−105
+170%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−169%
|
280−290
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−163%
|
150−160
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
−178%
|
200−210
+178%
|
| God of War | 35−40
−178%
|
100−105
+178%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
−173%
|
180−190
+173%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−165%
|
130−140
+165%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
−157%
|
350−400
+157%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
−174%
|
260−270
+174%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−171%
|
95−100
+171%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−171%
|
350−400
+171%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−176%
|
80−85
+176%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−173%
|
60−65
+173%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
−171%
|
450−500
+171%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−165%
|
450−500
+165%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−160%
|
130−140
+160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−156%
|
100−105
+156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
−173%
|
120−130
+173%
|
| God of War | 20−22
−175%
|
55−60
+175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−175%
|
110−120
+175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−166%
|
85−90
+166%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−160%
|
65−70
+160%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
−173%
|
270−280
+173%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−169%
|
70−75
+169%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−162%
|
160−170
+162%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
−163%
|
50−55
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−174%
|
85−90
+174%
|
| God of War | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−165%
|
45−50
+165%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and RX 9060 XT 16 GB compete in popular games:
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB is 174% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.28 | 48.08 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 4 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 160 Watt |
RX 9060 XT 16 GB has a 178.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 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.
