WEBVTT 00:00:01.280 --> 00:00:08.880 At AMD, we believe in supporting transparent, independent coverage that 00:00:06.000 --> 00:00:14.080 helps customers make informed decisions. Ah, do you then? Well, then why the 00:00:11.280 --> 00:00:21.320 houble hockey sticks didn't you want to send us an 8 gig version of the 960 XT? 00:00:18.080 --> 00:00:23.920 Oh, it was based on regional market 00:00:21.320 --> 00:00:28.880 demand. Well, the last time I checked, we have a global audience. So, um, 00:00:26.880 --> 00:00:33.000 unless there's no demand for a review in the region of 00:00:30.279 --> 00:00:36.880 Earth, I don't really get that explanation. No, the more likely reason 00:00:35.360 --> 00:00:42.480 is that you were afraid that we would roast your 5060 competitor as hard as we 00:00:39.760 --> 00:00:46.559 roasted the 5060, so you put off sending it until we wouldn't have time to test 00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:52.160 it before the embargo. But, we can talk more about your shenanigans later. 00:00:48.399 --> 00:00:54.320 First, the 9060 XT 16 gig promises to be 00:00:52.160 --> 00:00:59.520 the best value card with a 60 in the name in about half a decade, matching 00:00:56.640 --> 00:01:06.200 the 5060 Ti 8 gig in performance, outdoing it with double the VRAMm and 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:08.799 beating it on price, which sounds great, 00:01:06.200 --> 00:01:12.960 but it also might not be the right thing to buy. And I'll tell you why after I 00:01:11.040 --> 00:01:17.600 tell you something you do want to buy from our sponsor, Rocket Money. Take 00:01:15.280 --> 00:01:21.680 back control of your finances and start saving with Rocket Money's subscription 00:01:19.520 --> 00:01:28.759 cancelling, bill negotiation, and budgeting features. Get started for free 00:01:24.080 --> 00:01:28.759 using our link in the video description. 00:01:35.600 --> 00:01:42.799 1080p is both the most popular gaming resolution today and the most popular 00:01:40.400 --> 00:01:48.479 excuse for shipping kneecapped 8 gig cards like the 8 gig RTX 5060 which we 00:01:46.399 --> 00:01:53.040 purchased for this review since NVIDIA really doesn't seem to want reviewers 00:01:50.399 --> 00:01:58.880 testing those. But with all that said, the truth is if you are playing games at 00:01:54.960 --> 00:02:03.759 1080, AMD and NVIDIA are probably right. 00:01:58.880 --> 00:02:06.640 It is enough for now, but remember guys, 00:02:03.759 --> 00:02:11.400 this is the minimum spec for new AAA titles, and these are cards that cost 00:02:08.959 --> 00:02:17.280 $300 plus. Anywh who, across our suite of 00:02:14.480 --> 00:02:21.760 games that exist today, the 960 XT performs admirably, but not 00:02:19.239 --> 00:02:26.640 spectacularly, keeping up with the 5060 Ti cards, which cost at least $30 more 00:02:24.560 --> 00:02:32.720 and asserting a commanding lead over the anemic 5060 nonTi. It outperforms its 00:02:30.239 --> 00:02:37.840 last gen counterpart, the 7600 XT, by more than 30% most of the time, which is 00:02:35.760 --> 00:02:42.800 enough to highlight how truly awful that card was, but not enough to make the 00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:46.640 Intel ARC B580 look like a bad value. Intel's really standing out with their 00:02:44.480 --> 00:02:51.280 battle mage architecture. Of course, we would have loved to give you guys 8 gig 00:02:48.720 --> 00:02:56.000 numbers. So, this is merely conjecture, but at 1080p raster, you can expect 00:02:54.400 --> 00:03:00.560 pretty much identical performance numbers because it's essentially the 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:06.400 same card, sands half of the memory. If we find time to throw one on the bench, 00:03:02.239 --> 00:03:06.400 we will have that linked at LT Labs down 00:03:07.720 --> 00:03:16.480 below. Okay, so what about the value proposition? Well, that depends. See, 00:03:13.599 --> 00:03:21.440 the 9060 XT actually comes in three variants. The 8 gig one that didn't 00:03:18.640 --> 00:03:26.879 arrive on time, the base clocked 16 GB model, and the OC variant from Sapphire 00:03:24.159 --> 00:03:32.319 that was sent to us. This one has higher power draw and boosted clocks compared 00:03:29.120 --> 00:03:34.319 to 16 gig nonoC cards. But other than 00:03:32.319 --> 00:03:40.720 that, all of the variants are built on the exact same Nav'i 44 GPU based on 00:03:37.440 --> 00:03:42.000 AMD's RDNA4 architecture. This new 00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:48.640 architecture brings a bunch of improvements that you can get a deep dive into in our 9070 series review, but 00:03:46.879 --> 00:03:53.280 here's the short version. Big improvements in ray tracing and AI that 00:03:50.799 --> 00:03:57.519 bring these cards up to speed almost with NVIDIA in non-traditional forms of 00:03:55.680 --> 00:04:00.720 rendering and a host of other improvements that allow them to 00:03:58.879 --> 00:04:06.000 sometimes even beat NVIDIA in traditional raster. Despite its similar 00:04:03.200 --> 00:04:10.080 sounding name though, these new GPUs are substantially cut down compared to their 00:04:08.159 --> 00:04:16.160 bigger brothers with about half as many compute units as the 9070 XT. Basically, 00:04:13.200 --> 00:04:23.199 they did this, which means we have half the memory bus width, but benefit from 00:04:19.040 --> 00:04:26.240 keeping the same IO and 16 PCIe Gen 5 00:04:23.199 --> 00:04:28.160 lanes. That last point is key for gamers 00:04:26.240 --> 00:04:33.360 who are holding on to older systems where a by8 interface like on some of 00:04:30.639 --> 00:04:38.320 NVIDIA and Intel's cards can result in a measurable performance loss. Oh, there 00:04:36.320 --> 00:04:42.960 is one thing I lied about on the IO. Interestingly, this card only has three 00:04:40.880 --> 00:04:46.720 display outputs. Now, most of you declared this to be a non-issue after 00:04:44.960 --> 00:04:52.080 the announcement, but it is the first time that I've seen a $300 card in years 00:04:49.440 --> 00:04:55.520 that didn't have four outputs. I digress, though. To compensate for the 00:04:53.680 --> 00:04:59.360 cut down die, AMD bumped up the clock speed so that you'll get a bit more than 00:04:57.520 --> 00:05:04.639 literally half of the performance of the 9070 XT, which is also why the card 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:10.000 draws a bit over half the power in line with the 5060Ti 8 gig that AMD positions 00:05:07.600 --> 00:05:15.280 it against. And in combuster, our card seems to be right in line with the 5060 00:05:12.320 --> 00:05:20.560 Ti 8 gig. But interestingly, the story is a bit different in F-124. 00:05:18.160 --> 00:05:28.280 In this racing game, AMD's latest pulls an average 174 watts with a maximum 00:05:24.240 --> 00:05:32.880 spike of 225 watts. By comparison, the 00:05:28.280 --> 00:05:34.560 5060Ti 8 gig averages around 121 watts. 00:05:32.880 --> 00:05:38.240 Now, we don't know if this behavior will show up in every game, but this is 00:05:36.320 --> 00:05:43.039 enough for us to recommend going for a slightly beefier power supply than the 00:05:40.560 --> 00:05:47.520 450 W unit that AMD recommends. Thankfully, this is still relatively low 00:05:45.840 --> 00:05:52.080 power draw, meaning that these cards are pretty easy to tame. And even loaded by 00:05:50.080 --> 00:05:58.639 a power virus like Combuster, our card stayed both cool and quiet. Let's talk 00:05:55.039 --> 00:06:00.720 1440p gaming. AMD claimed 6% better 00:05:58.639 --> 00:06:07.280 gaming performance than the 5060 Ti 8 gig at 1440, but looking at our raster 00:06:03.960 --> 00:06:09.199 results, we just don't see it. They 00:06:07.280 --> 00:06:13.680 score a couple of wins in Alen Wake 2 and Last of Us Part One, but is it 00:06:11.680 --> 00:06:18.319 really that impressive of a win when NVIDIA's 8 gig cards can't complete the 00:06:16.080 --> 00:06:24.639 test and you just didn't submit your 8 gig card on time for testing? Especially 00:06:21.280 --> 00:06:27.919 when we factor in that the 960 XT 16 gig 00:06:24.639 --> 00:06:29.680 trails behind the 5060 Ti's and honestly 00:06:27.919 --> 00:06:33.840 doesn't even look that stellar against the 5060 in the remainder of our games 00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:38.319 here. If you're wondering, by the way, about how the 5070 compares to all this, 00:06:36.560 --> 00:06:42.160 we didn't retest that card for this review, so we didn't want to include 00:06:40.240 --> 00:06:46.880 stale numbers, but it's a little worse than the 9070 nonXT from back when we 00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:52.000 reviewed that. Moving on to ray tracing. Despite the massive leap in RT 00:06:49.120 --> 00:06:56.880 performance that came with RDNA4, AMD is still unable to match their direct 00:06:53.840 --> 00:07:00.080 NVIDIA competitors. In 1080p RT, the 00:06:56.880 --> 00:07:02.960 9060 XT falls well behind the 5060Ti 8 00:07:00.080 --> 00:07:07.520 gig in our suite of tests, which is sad. But what really jumped off the charts to 00:07:05.039 --> 00:07:13.360 me is NVIDIA's embarrassing loss here with the 5060 not even able to keep up 00:07:10.319 --> 00:07:15.599 with the 4060 Ti. I thought they had 00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:21.039 improved the ray tracing on Blackwell. What the heck happened? And in 1440p RT 00:07:19.280 --> 00:07:24.599 Cyberpunk, things don't look much better. Maybe we can find a happier 00:07:23.440 --> 00:07:29.360 story in productivity. No, not really. I mean, 00:07:27.199 --> 00:07:34.160 the nice thing about having 16 gigs of memory, if you do, is that it allows you 00:07:32.080 --> 00:07:38.160 to dip your toes into AI without being as limited. I mean, look at how all the 00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:43.120 8 gig cards fumble as we load up a larger model. But even with 16 gigs, AMD 00:07:41.039 --> 00:07:47.199 isn't even close to NVIDIA in terms of performance in our machine learning 00:07:44.479 --> 00:07:51.360 tests. It turns out, haha, software support is important. And that only 00:07:49.280 --> 00:07:59.520 becomes more clear as we move beyond AI to Blender. Optics go br and HIP 00:07:56.759 --> 00:08:03.440 go. Adjusting focus to content creation though, we see big improvements gen over 00:08:01.360 --> 00:08:07.639 gen from AMD and they even beat NVIDIA in Da Vinci Resolve, though they trail 00:08:05.280 --> 00:08:12.160 behind in the more popular Premier Pro benchmark. All right, well that's the 00:08:09.840 --> 00:08:18.240 performance. So, this has been a big load of NH so far. But hey, getting 16 00:08:15.440 --> 00:08:23.199 gigs of VRAM and 5060 Ti-ish performance for a theoretical $30 discount, that's 00:08:20.840 --> 00:08:28.400 something. It's just it's tough to justify the $50 jump over the 5060, 00:08:26.319 --> 00:08:34.399 whose price is tough to justify over a kick in the groin. I mean, to AMD's 00:08:31.039 --> 00:08:36.399 credit here, FSR4 has made huge strides, 00:08:34.399 --> 00:08:41.839 meaning that other than multiframe gen, which a lot of you aren't that into, AMD 00:08:39.680 --> 00:08:45.920 has near par on most of the features that gamers care about. Even their video 00:08:43.919 --> 00:08:50.800 encoder is almost as good as Envank these days. They just need to work on 00:08:48.000 --> 00:08:57.120 third party support for all of this stuff. So, at the end of the day then, I 00:08:54.560 --> 00:09:01.680 don't know. I'm left kind of frustrated. In recent years, AMD has slowly but 00:08:59.440 --> 00:09:05.760 surely caught up to NVIDIA in terms of performance and features, but they've 00:09:03.760 --> 00:09:13.120 also caught up in terms of their crappy behavior. Last gen, the 7600 XT had 16 00:09:09.440 --> 00:09:15.839 gigs and the 7600 nonXT had 8 gigs of 00:09:13.120 --> 00:09:19.040 VRAM. It was super easy to tell what you were buying from the name of the 00:09:17.279 --> 00:09:23.760 product. This time around, they've lumped both cards together with the same 00:09:21.360 --> 00:09:27.920 XT name and then at the same time, as far as we can tell, intentionally made 00:09:25.920 --> 00:09:32.880 it more difficult for media to review the 8 gig version, which could lead to 00:09:30.160 --> 00:09:38.080 consumer confusion. So AMD, your commitment to the press words kind of 00:09:35.519 --> 00:09:42.000 meaningless at this point. And speaking of meaningless promises, you still 00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:46.160 haven't managed to get your previous cards into the sales channel anywhere 00:09:44.240 --> 00:09:49.519 near MSRP, which means you've effectively given away any credibility 00:09:47.839 --> 00:09:56.800 that you might have had there, too. So bottom line, if you have 350 bucks or 00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:59.120 more to spend, you can buy a 960 XT, I 00:09:56.800 --> 00:10:02.560 guess. But I wouldn't recommend the 8 gig one if you want to get a longer 00:10:00.800 --> 00:10:07.600 lifespan out of your card or you want to upgrade your monitor to 1440p. And 00:10:05.200 --> 00:10:11.360 whichever one you choose, just don't smuggly tell yourself that you're 00:10:09.200 --> 00:10:15.440 supporting the good guy, because AMD's actions speak much louder than their 00:10:13.360 --> 00:10:20.560 words, and they seem content to just draft behind NVIDIA, both in good ways 00:10:18.160 --> 00:10:25.120 and bad, rather than aggressively jump out in front to delight PC gamers who 00:10:22.560 --> 00:10:30.560 don't have $800 plus dollars to spend on a GPU. AMD, this was kind of your shot. 00:10:28.720 --> 00:10:34.959 NVIDIA is super distracted at the moment, and unless you do more, your GPU 00:10:32.800 --> 00:10:40.079 division is going to continue to only resonate with a small niche of users who 00:10:37.279 --> 00:10:43.440 don't mind owning a punching bag. And I would deserve to be punched in the bag 00:10:41.440 --> 00:10:46.880 if I didn't segue to our sponsor, Squarespace. Whether your business is 00:10:45.360 --> 00:10:50.320 just getting off the ground or you've been in the dark ages of cold calling 00:10:48.560 --> 00:10:54.079 for a while, a website will give you that extra push to take things to the 00:10:52.240 --> 00:10:58.000 next level. That's where Squarespace comes in. Their Squarespace blueprint 00:10:56.079 --> 00:11:01.120 guided design system gives you the ultimate starter pack to get the 00:10:59.519 --> 00:11:05.839 creative juices flowing with professionally curated layout and 00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:10.240 styling options. Then once you've laid the foundation, use their fluid engine 00:11:07.839 --> 00:11:14.240 editor and its code-free drag and drop elements to customize to your heart's 00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:19.120 content. Your website also comes with integrated SEO tools and advanced 00:11:16.959 --> 00:11:22.880 analytics so you can optimize what's working and identify what might need a 00:11:21.040 --> 00:11:27.760 little tweaking. You can even set up your website to take payments via credit 00:11:25.040 --> 00:11:31.200 card, PayPal, and more. So, head on over to 00:11:29.079 --> 00:11:35.839 squarespace.com/LTT for a free trial and save 10% on your first purchase of a 00:11:33.519 --> 00:11:40.240 website or domain. If you guys enjoyed this video, go check out our review of 00:11:37.200 --> 00:11:41.760 the 9070 and 9070 XT. It dives a little 00:11:40.240 --> 00:11:45.040 bit deeper into the architectural changes with RDNA4.