Monday, June 2nd 2025
AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB Shows Up In Early Time Spy Benchmark With Mixed Conclusions
AMD's upcoming Radeon RX 9060 XT has shown up in the news a number of times leading up to the expected retail launch, from AsRock's announcement to a recent Geekbench leak that put the RDNA 4 GPU ahead of the RX 7600 XT by a fair shout. Now, however, we have a gaming benchmark from 3DMark Time Spy showing the RX 9060 XT nearly matching the RX 7700 XT, and those results could still improve as drivers mature and become more stable. The benchmark results are courtesy of u/uesato_hinata, who got their hands on an XFX Swift AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and posted their results on r/AMD on Reddit.
There are a few caveats to these performance figures, though, since the redditor who shared the results was using beta drivers and a moderate GPU overclock and undervolt—cited as "+200mhz clock offset -40mv undervolt +10% power limit, I can get 3.46Ghz at 199 W". With those performance tweaks, however, the RX 9060 XT puts up a respectable result of 14,210 points in 3DMark Time Spy. For comparison, the average RX 7700 XT scores 15,452 points in the same benchmark. However, it should also be noted that the gaming PC used in the RX 9060 XT benchmark in question was powered by a rather old AMD Ryzen 5 5600 paired with mismatched DDR4-2133 RAM, meaning there is likely at least some performance left on the table, even if GPU utilization seems consistently high in the 3DMark monitoring chart, indicating there was little bottlenecking limiting the performance. The redditor went on to benchmark the GPU in Black Myth: Wukong, where it managed a 64 FPS average at stock clocks at 1080p, with most settings set to high. Applying the overclock boosted average FPS to a mere 65 FPS, but increased the minimum FPS from 17 to 23. These numbers also won't be representative of the performance for all RX 9060 XT GPUs, since we know that AMD is launching both 8 and 16 GB versions of the RX 9060 XT with different GPU clock speeds for the different memory variants
Sources:
u/uesato_hinata on Reddit, WCCF Tech
There are a few caveats to these performance figures, though, since the redditor who shared the results was using beta drivers and a moderate GPU overclock and undervolt—cited as "+200mhz clock offset -40mv undervolt +10% power limit, I can get 3.46Ghz at 199 W". With those performance tweaks, however, the RX 9060 XT puts up a respectable result of 14,210 points in 3DMark Time Spy. For comparison, the average RX 7700 XT scores 15,452 points in the same benchmark. However, it should also be noted that the gaming PC used in the RX 9060 XT benchmark in question was powered by a rather old AMD Ryzen 5 5600 paired with mismatched DDR4-2133 RAM, meaning there is likely at least some performance left on the table, even if GPU utilization seems consistently high in the 3DMark monitoring chart, indicating there was little bottlenecking limiting the performance. The redditor went on to benchmark the GPU in Black Myth: Wukong, where it managed a 64 FPS average at stock clocks at 1080p, with most settings set to high. Applying the overclock boosted average FPS to a mere 65 FPS, but increased the minimum FPS from 17 to 23. These numbers also won't be representative of the performance for all RX 9060 XT GPUs, since we know that AMD is launching both 8 and 16 GB versions of the RX 9060 XT with different GPU clock speeds for the different memory variants
25 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB Shows Up In Early Time Spy Benchmark With Mixed Conclusions
It’s nine years old. Why would anyone sane benchmark with it?
Age hardly matters as these benchmarks have almost no CPU overhead in graphics score so you can use them to compare (especially same generation) GPUs regardless of specs (almost). So we can say these results put this card about roughly about 7700XT level (using graphics scores). Not so great, not so bad.
From the documentation:It tests features from the GTX 400 days. It uses shader model 5.0.
Total irrelevancy today.
At 199 mm², it should have a 192-bit memory interface. No excuse.
Someone buy me the card, I'll test it in Port Royal. I'll test it in any port. I don't care. Just give me the card.
On a more serious note, this is roughly 55% of the 9070 XT score. Doesn't come as a surprise. Maybe the best 9060 XTs out there could hit 18500+ but it's still not good enough. I'd get a used 4070 instead any day. Essentially the same price, faster and supports more stuff.
And AMD aren't the ones stagnating the market, they're not the ones leading it with overpriced cards.
sort by more expensive is not a valid purchase decision
Just like RTX 5080 could not beat RTX 4090 and RTX 5060 Ti could not beat RTX 4070.
But at some point they will shift I wouldn't be surprised if they are already testing on it to build a database for when they move or at least should be.Indeed even a 3 gen older 6800xt easily beats that. So my advice will be the same as it is for 5060/TI and 5070 buy a 6800xt if you just want raster.It's not a good look that's for sure. Nvidia led the way AMD has followed they did the same last gen also. These cards don't even make sense at 300.00
also encoder is better so for most people you are much better off with a 9060xt over 6800xt to be honest.
That being said, raw performance uplift is a bit disappointing at the tier, but 350$ for up to date featureset, low power and 16gb msrp is not bad if it only hits those prices that is.