OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£280VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):145 W

KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

40%

6.7

Technical score

25%

6.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.2

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 65% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

▲Better than 62%
6.7

Technical score

Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components

44%

5.7

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.8

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

10

Connectivity

▼Worse than 58%
6.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 74% of models

6.7

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 74%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • kfa2-geforce-rtx-5060-ex
kfa2-geforce-rtx-5060-ex
Where to buy
    N/A~ £280
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX

Based on 164 owners sharing their experience in online comments

74%positive14%mixed12%negative

Owners praise smooth, affordable gaming, while limited memory can force lower settings in demanding games.

What owners dislike

  • The 8GB memory fills up over time in demanding games, and frame rates can drop sharply after 15 minutes, forcing lower textures or settings.20
  • Owners say it struggles with heavy games and 1440p, with frame rates falling to around 30 to 60 fps in some titles unless settings or resolution drop.9

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Graphics cards model ranking

Ranked #1982 of 2,260 models in Graphics cards (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of graphics card KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX

Technical score
Technical score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components:

44%

5.7

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.8

Features

5%

8.8

Design

4%

10

Connectivity

6.7
Reviews score
6.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

9.0

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
12,446 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 12,446 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 60.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
8,662 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 8,662 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 53.1% of graphics cards and equal to 1.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
20,805 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 20,805 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 58.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
10,482 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 10,482 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 58.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
19.18 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 19.18 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 59% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR7
This graphics card uses GDDR7 memory, which is newer than on 79.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.4% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
448 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 448 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 41.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
28,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 28,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 78.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5
This graphics card supports PCIe 5, which is newer than on 73% of graphics cards and equal to 27% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1b
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1b, which is more advanced than on 77.8% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
?
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
145 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 145 W, which is lower than that of 75.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
145 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 145 W under peak load, which is lower than 77.3% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
145 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 145 W, which is lower than that of 77.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
145 W
Show more
Size
255x 127x 39.6 mm
Length
255 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 255 mm long, which is shorter than 65.8% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Height
127 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 127 mm tall, which is taller than 54.2% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 47.4% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5 vs 4
  • 18.8% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,280 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,280 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 32.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (145 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    145 W vs 215 W
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 1.4a).
    2.1b vs 1.4a
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    May 2025
    2025 vs 2023
  • 18.8% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,280 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,280 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    May 2025
    2025 vs 2023
  • 1.2% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,535 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 4.39x higher BF16 performance
    This graphics card has a higher BF16 performance than the average graphics card (155.7 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has BF16 performance of 35.48 TFLOPS.
    155.7 TFLOPS vs 35.48 TFLOPS
  • 47.4% faster memory speed
    This graphics card has a higher effective memory speed than the average graphics card (28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    28,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • Newer GDDR version
    This graphics card uses a newer GDDR version than the average graphics card (GDDR7 vs GDDR6).
    GDDR7 vs GDDR6
  • 8x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (32 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    32 MB vs 4 MB
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5 vs 4
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 1.4a).
    2.1b vs 1.4a
  • Newer HDMI version
    This graphics card supports a newer HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1b vs 2.1a).
    2.1b vs 2.1a
  • 32.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (145 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    145 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 34.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (145 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    145 W vs 220 W
  • 6 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (89 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    89 °C vs 95 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 27.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (255 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    255 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 10 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (30 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    30 vs 40
  • 64 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (120 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    120 vs 184
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 10 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (30 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    30 vs 40
  • 6.9% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models

    6.7

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.7 vs 7.2
  • 10 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (30 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    30 vs 40
  • 64 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (120 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    120 vs 184
  • 10 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (30 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    30 vs 40
  • 16 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (48 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    48 vs 64
  • 24.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (121.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    121.7 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 19.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (304.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    304.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 24 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (120 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    120 vs 144
  • 15.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (19.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    19.18 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 15.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (12,446 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    12,446 points vs 14,779 points
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.9
pcmasters.de
✓ explicit
01/09/2025
Lab test · Mid-range card
Verdict
The KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX is a sensible two-slot mid-range card with a simple 8-pin power plug and lit fans, but 8GB of memory is its main limit.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX

  • Strong 1080p performance, capable of high refresh rates in modern titles and esports games.
  • Highly power-efficient design with a low TDP (approx. 145W), making it suitable for older power supplies.
  • Excellent thermal management; the 'EX' dual-fan cooling system keeps temperatures low (around 60-65°C) and operates quietly.
  • Support for DLSS 4 and Multi-Frame Generation (MFG), providing significant smoothness boosts in supported titles.
  • Significant architectural upgrade over the RTX 4060, featuring faster GDDR7 memory and increased bandwidth.
  • Compact, SFF-ready footprint that fits easily into small form factor cases.

What customers don't like about KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX

  • 8GB VRAM is considered insufficient for 2025/2026 standards, causing performance 'collapse' at 1440p or ultra settings in demanding games.
  • PCIe 5.0 x8 interface can lead to performance degradation on older PCIe 3.0 motherboards.
  • Diminishing generational value, with performance often only matching the older RTX 3070 or 4060 Ti.
  • Struggles with heavy Ray Tracing at resolutions above 1080p due to memory and power limitations.
  • Strong competition from AMD (RX 9060 XT) and Intel (Arc B580), which offer more VRAM for similar or lower prices.

Verdict

The KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX is a mid-range graphics card built on NVIDIA's Blackwell architecture, featuring 3,840 CUDA cores, 120 Tensor cores, and 30 RT cores. It is equipped with 8 GB of high-speed GDDR7 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a significant memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s. Key characteristics include support for DLSS 4, a PCIe 5.0 x8 interface, and a dual-fan WINGS 3.0 cooling system with a 145W TDP. Main pros include excellent 1080p gaming performance, high power efficiency, and access to the latest AI-driven upscaling technologies. However, notable cons include the limited 8 GB VRAM capacity, which can bottleneck performance at higher resolutions like 1440p, and potential bandwidth limitations on older PCIe 3.0 motherboards due to its x8 lane configuration.

Compare KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of KFA2 GeForce RTX 5060 EX and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found