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

XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£500VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):150 W

XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB
7.1/10

Overall score

Score
7.1/ 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 62% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

8.1

List score

10%

6.4

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 62% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

7.9

Price

▼Worse than 62%
6.4

Technical score

Technical score
6.4/ 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 64% of models
Score components

44%

6.0

Performance

24%

4.2

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.4

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 64%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
8.1

List score

List score
8.1/ 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 (2)
List score: in 2 of 83 lists (2%)
★Better than 97%
  • xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
  • xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
  • xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
  • xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
  • xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
xfx-swift-radeon-rx-9060-xt-oc-8gb
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB

Based on 214 owners sharing their experience in online comments

70%positive8%mixed22%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming performance and value, while crashes, black screens, and driver problems frustrate many buyers.

What owners dislike

  • Owners get no picture after installing; some fixes are disabling integrated graphics in BIOS, reseating the power cable, or using HDMI.16
  • Owners report random crashes and full system freezes during gaming, sometimes after about 15 minutes, and in some cases in every game.11
  • Owners say driver installs fail or go black, and some report driver crashes, with DDU cleanups needed before a working install.9
  • Owners say prices have climbed since launch, so the card no longer feels like good value unless it drops closer to its original price.6
  • Owners report stutters, lag, or sudden frame drops in some games, even when the average frame rate looks high.5
  • Some owners find FSR upscaling blurry, and say FSR 4 is missing from some games or doesn't work in some UE5 titles without OptiScaler.5
  • Demanding games such as Jedi Survivor run poorly, and some newer titles only reach about 60 fps at 1440p on medium settings.5

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB

Technical score
Technical score
6.4/ 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 64% of models
Score components:

44%

6.0

Performance

24%

4.2

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.4

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

6.4
Reviews score
7.6
List score
8.1
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.1

Overall score

30%

7.9

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
17,233 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 17,233 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 57.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
9,590 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 9,590 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 52.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
30,190 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 30,190 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 72.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
11,149 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 11,149 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 55.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
25.8 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 25.8 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 56.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% 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
?
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
322.3 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 322.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 65.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
20,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 20,000 MHz, which is faster than that of 53.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 7.5% 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
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% 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
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% 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
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
2.1a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1a, which is more advanced than on 74.2% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
54 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 54 Gbps, which is faster than on 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
150 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 150 W, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
182 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 182 W under peak load, which is lower than 60.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% 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
182 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 182 W, which is lower than that of 61.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
182 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
270 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 270 mm long, which is shorter than 56.5% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
124 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 124 mm tall, which is shorter than 51.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% 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

XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 32.5% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (3,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    3,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 43.9% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5.0 vs 4.0
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1a vs 1.4a).
    2.1a vs 1.4a
  • 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
  • 6.6% higher list score
    List score
    8.1/ 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 (2)
    List score: in 2 of 83 lists (2%)
    8.1 vs 7.6
  • 32.5% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (3,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    3,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2 years newer
    This graphics card was released more recently than the average graphics card (2025 vs 2023).
    2,025 vs 2,023
  • 24.2% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (200.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    200.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 33.4% higher PassMark score
    This graphics card has a higher PassMark score than the average graphics card (30,190 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    30,190 points vs 22,638 points
  • 43.9% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,518 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer PCIe version
    This graphics card supports a newer PCIe version than the average graphics card (5 vs 4).
    5.0 vs 4.0
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1a vs 1.4a).
    2.1a vs 1.4a
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 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
  • 2.5x higher DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    54 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 30.2% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (150 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    150 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
  • 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, 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
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 17.9% lower sentiment score
    6.4 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 80 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (64 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    64 vs 144
  • 8 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    32 vs 40
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 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
  • 28.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (322.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    322.3 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • 75% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (32 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    32 KB vs 128 KB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 20 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (115 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    115 °C vs 95 °C

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB

  • A 3320 MHz boost clock keeps the card quick in demanding games.
  • FSR and frame generation both work.
  • A 4 nm chip on a 199 mm² die keeps the design compact.
  • HDMI runs at 48 Gbps for fast screens.
  • A 550 W power supply recommendation is easy to meet.
  • PCIe 5.0 x16 gives the card a full-width link.

What customers don't like about XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB

  • There is no CUDA support, so some creative software will not run.
  • There is no DLSS, so upscaling relies on FSR alone.
  • It drives three displays at most, which is tight for a wide desk.
  • Its 115 °C maximum junction temperature leaves the fans working hard.
  • At 270 mm long, it needs a roomy case.

Verdict

The XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB suits a gamer who wants a fast card with a modest power draw. It boosts to 3320 MHz, and its 2518 MHz memory keeps pace with the core. Its 4 nm chip is built on a compact 199 mm² die, which keeps the design tidy. FSR and frame generation both work, and the HDMI link runs at 48 Gbps. The trade-off is the missing CUDA support, which some creative software needs. With 322.3 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit bus, the card moves data at a steady pace. Its 270 mm length and two fans keep heat moving away from the chip. It suits a buyer who wants speed and FSR and does not need CUDA or DLSS.

Compare XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB 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 XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC 8GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found