Actually the 16 GB also remains within the price band, and is way better performance and value according to the reviews I’ve seen.
The chart is also misleading, because 6600 XT was also within the price band, and was the first reasonably priced GPU in a long time when it came out, and way cheaper than what the 5600 XT sold for at the time. The trick was that AMD managed to make the die smaller for the 6600 XT, when there was a shortage of die production capacity.
The idea that it absolutely has to be below $300 is stupid considering the GFX 1060 was $250 when that came out in 2016. And there has been a lot of inflation especially after COVID.
The “correct” review would have been to stay on the XT models throughout, and for the 9060 using the 16 GB version, as in Europe it’s actually a bit cheaper than 6600 XT when that came out.
Looks like the 9060 XT is one of better products for AMD in this price band in the last ~5 years.
Some of the difference between the 5000 and 6000 series are barely noticeable.
Actually the 16 GB also remains within the price band, and is way better performance and value according to the reviews I’ve seen.
The chart is also misleading, because 6600 XT was also within the price band, and was the first reasonably priced GPU in a long time when it came out, and way cheaper than what the 5600 XT sold for at the time. The trick was that AMD managed to make the die smaller for the 6600 XT, when there was a shortage of die production capacity.
The idea that it absolutely has to be below $300 is stupid considering the GFX 1060 was $250 when that came out in 2016. And there has been a lot of inflation especially after COVID.
The “correct” review would have been to stay on the XT models throughout, and for the 9060 using the 16 GB version, as in Europe it’s actually a bit cheaper than 6600 XT when that came out.