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 White Gaming 16GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£380VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):160 W

XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 2 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

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 67% of models
Score components

40%

6.8

Technical score

25%

6.8

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.8

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 67% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 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 54% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

▼Worse than 54%
6.8

Technical score

Technical score
6.8/ 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 53% of models
Score components

44%

5.9

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

▼Worse than 53%
6.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.8/ 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 72% of models

6.8

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

6.5

Popularity

Grades by review (2)
2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 72%
?

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
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £380
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 White Gaming 16GB

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 White Gaming 16GB

Technical score
Technical score
6.8/ 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 53% of models
Score components:

44%

5.9

Performance

24%

6.1

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.3

Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.7

Connectivity

6.8
Reviews score
6.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
16,500 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 16,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 54.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
9,713 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 9,713 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 52.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
20,032 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 20,032 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 60.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
28,995 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 28,995 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 93% of graphics cards and equal to 2.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
25.6 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 25.6 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
?
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 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
320 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 320 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.2% 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
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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)
160 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 160 W, which is lower than that of 67.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
160 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 160 W under peak load, which is lower than 71.4% of graphics cards and equal to 3.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
160 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 160 W, which is lower than that of 71.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
160 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
270 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 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 White Gaming 16GB 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
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 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
  • 25.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (160 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    160 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • 2.4x higher compute score
    This graphics card has a higher compute score than the average graphics card (28,995 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    28,995 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 25.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (160 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    160 W vs 215 W
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 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.
  • 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
    XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB 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
  • 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
  • 5.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.8/ 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 72% of models

    6.8

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    6.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (2)
    2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    6.8 vs 7.2
  • 12.8% lower sentiment score
    6.8 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
  • 11.5% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (20,032 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    20,032 points vs 22,638 points
  • 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
  • 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
  • 28.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    320 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
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 vs 3.0
  • 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
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
The FPS Review
≈ estimated
15/06/2026
Hands-on review · cooling, power draw and price
Verdict
XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB offers strong cooling and full performance out of the box, but its street price is well above MSRP.
Overview video
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB

  • A 450 W power supply recommendation keeps the build modest.
  • 16 GB of memory leaves room for heavy game settings.
  • A 3320 MHz boost clock keeps frame rates high in demanding games.
  • A PassMark DirectCompute score of 28995 points is strong.
  • FSR and frame generation both work.
  • A DisplayPort link rate of 54 Gbps carries a fast signal.

What customers don't like about XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB

  • There is no DLSS or XeSS, so upscaling relies on FSR.
  • There is no CUDA support, which some creative software needs.
  • Three displays is the most it runs, which limits a wide setup.
  • The 110 °C maximum junction temperature means the fans work hard.
  • Only two DisplayPort outputs cap a multi-screen setup.

Verdict

A 450 W power supply recommendation is the first thing to like about the XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB. It has 16 GB of memory and ECC, an uncommon extra that catches memory errors. Its 3320 MHz boost clock and 2518 MHz memory keep the card quick. The 160 W design and 4 nm chip make it an easy card to live with. Its PassMark DirectCompute result of 28995 points is a strong showing. The trade-off is the missing DLSS and XeSS, so upscaling relies on FSR. At 270 mm long, with two fans, it is a sensible size to fit in a case. It suits a buyer who wants 16 GB, ECC and modest power needs, and who does not need DLSS.

Compare XFX Swift Radeon RX 9060 XT OC White Gaming 16GB 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 White Gaming 16GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found