AMD blames "regional market demand" for limited Radeon 9060 XT 8GB reviews

[midian182]

A hot potato: Soon after AMD defended GPUs with 8GB of VRAM by claiming most gamers play esports that don't require more memory, the company has explained why it sent out so few Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB cards to reviewers. Apparently, it's due to "regional market demand."

There has been a slew of controversy over Nvidia's and AMD's recent 8GB cards. It's accepted that this amount of VRAM is woefully insufficient for most modern games, which is why Nvidia told reviewers not to compare the RTX 5060 to the RTX 4060 and to turn on 4x multi-frame generation to essentially inflate FPS results.

The 16GB version of AMD's Radeon 9060 XT, which we really like and gave a score of 85, was sent to plenty of mainstream reviewers. But the same can't be said for the 8GB version – only a handful were sent out before launch, mostly to smaller outlets.

This has led to speculation that, like Nvidia, AMD didn't want the 8GB model of the Radeon 9060 XT to have a lot of (negative) publicity.

According to official AMD guidelines revealed by Linus Tech Tips, AMD said it enabled global reviews of both 16GB and 8GB models of the Radeon RX 9060 XT based on regional market demand.

"So in short, yes, there are some other global publications that are receiving 8GB models for testing," the company explained.

In late May, AMD's Frank Azor wrote that the majority of gamers still play at 1080p and that worldwide, the most popular genre of game is esports. Therefore, 8GB is enough for most people. The latest Steam survey supports the first part of his statement – 1080p remains the most popular resolution among participants, with more than half of them playing at Full-HD.

Majority of gamers are still playing at 1080p and have no use for more than 8GB of memory. Most played games WW are mostly esports games. We wouldn't build it if there wasn't a market for it. If 8GB isn't right for you then there's 16GB. Same GPU, no compromise, just memory…

– Frank Azor (@AzorFrank) May 22, 2025

Nvidia has also made similar claims about 8GB being mostly for non-Western markets, especially Asia. However, one has to wonder why the companies never rolled out these excuses in the past.

We said the RTX 5060 Ti 8GB, the reviews of which Nvidia successfully delayed, was instantly obsolete due to its stingy amount of VRAM and $379 MSRP. We also disputed Azor's claim that these 8GB cards are meant for 1080p gaming.

As for the RX 9060 XT 8GB, we note that buying one over the 16GB version is effectively just throwing away money – you're saving just $50 at the cost of a huge performance drop.

Permalink to story:

AMD blames "regional market demand" for limited Radeon 9060 XT 8GB reviews

 

[Axeia]

Just be honest AMD - it creates less friction. Fire your entire marketing team, they're awful at what they do and are likely costing you more sales then they're bringing in.
A 8GB model is justifiable - the backlash is just about how you're advertising it. All you needed to do is give reviewers both cards and release a statement along the lines of:
"For those that are into esports titles we want to offer a lower cost solution. If you however play a wider range of games or plan to do so at any point we would recommend the 16GB model"

You're trying to upsell people for a fatter margin, just be honest about it. Don't try to piggyback the 8GB model on the good reception of the 16GB model. Plus side is that you don't have to pay a bunch of people who's job it is to try and put a positive spin on everything to the point where no one believes them.
NVIDIA's profit/growth is what you want, but you don't need to copy their recipe to get there.

There's a famous example even of Pepsi trying to be more like Coca Cola by changing the recipe of their own product and losing their own customer base. Those that liked Pepsi liked it for being Pepsi, not for being like Coca Cola.
Look at Pepsi now, they're killing it in the sugar free market.

Moral of the story: Don't copy the competition. Just play to your own strengths.

 

[Burty117]

"For those that into esports title we want to offer a lower cost solution. If you however play a wider range of games or plan to do so at any point we would recommend the 16GB model"

Thing is, that's not even honest really, 8GB paired with that GPU doesn't make sense, if they wanted to make an actually cheaper card for eSports, the GPU could be way smaller and therefore, way cheaper.

8GB gimps the GPU just too much, check out 1080p Indiana Jones:

What's the point in charging people for a massively powerful GPU chip, when you pair it with such a small VRAM buffer, it can't even use it's power properly.

 

[yRaz]

AMD is making a fraction of their GPUs. There is ridiculous demand, but they are doing the same thing NV is doing, only different. The demand for their server products is absurd. They're using most of their TSMC capacity to my CPUs instead of GPUs.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Just be honest AMD - it creates less friction. Fire your entire marketing team, they're awful at what they do and are likely costing you more sales then they're bringing in.
A 8GB model is justifiable - the backlash is just about how you're advertising it. All you needed to do is give reviewers both cards and release a statement along the lines of:
"For those that into esports title we want to offer a lower cost solution. If you however play a wider range of games or plan to do so at any point we would recommend the 16GB model"

You're trying to upsell people for a fatter margin, just be honest about it. Don't try to piggyback the 8GB model on the good reception of the 16GB model. Plus side is that you don't have to pay a bunch of people who's job it is to try and put a positive spin on everything to the point where no one believes them.
NVIDIA's profit/growth is what you want, but you don't need to copy their recipe to get there.

There's a famous example even of Pepsi trying to be more like Coca Cola by changing the recipe of their own product and losing their own customer base. Those that liked Pepsi liked it for being Pepsi not for being like Coca Cola.
Look at Pepsi now, they're killing it in the sugar free market.

Moral of the story: Don't copy the competition. Just play to your own strengths.

- Nah, its time AMD started playing in the big leagues with Nvidia.

Lie, cheat, and steal. People will reward you by buying your cards in droves.

Just make sure the first reviews are as good as possible or the reviews for your absolute stinkers are as delayed as possible so people get suckered into buying a bad product.

Then let people do the work for you, they'll convince themselves they made the right choice even if they didn't, cause the truth hurts. They'll double down and defend their purchase till they're red (or green) in the face.

 

[dnous]

They should just openly come out and just say wanted to have a card that competes with the 8GB version of the 5060. And that their market research further proves that there is a demand for the 8GB version in regions where consumers have less disposable income. Like in Asia, South America, Balkan etc.

Also those regions are just guesses from my side. If I am wrong please correct me.

 

[Axeia]

Thing is, that's not even honest really, 8GB paired with that GPU doesn't make sense, if they wanted to make an actually cheaper card for eSports, the GPU could be way smaller and therefore, way cheaper.

8GB gimps the GPU just too much, check out 1080p Indiana Jones:

What's the point in charging people for a massively powerful GPU chip, when you pair it with such a small VRAM buffer, it can't even use it's power properly.

That's because Indiana Jones is not an eSports title.
It's not a game a person play exclusively for say the next half a decade. A game you want at least 120 fps on, a game you might even set to the lowest possible texture and model quality settings because things are easier to see.
Think LoL and others Mobas, RTS like StarCraft 2 and of course (hero) shooters like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Marvel Rivals and Fortnite.

Fortnite is the only game that can be set to settings that exceeds 8GB, but no one plays competitively on those settings because they tank the FPS too much and makes things harder to see. These are all games that some people play literally every day and not a single other game.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

That's because Indiana Jones is not an eSports title.
It's not a game a person play exclusively for say the next half a decade. A game you want at least 120 fps on, a game you might even set to the lowest possible texture and model quality settings because things are easier to see.
Think LoL and others Mobas, RTS like StarCraft 2 and of course (hero) shooters like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Marvel Rivals and Fortnite.

Fortnite is the only game that can be set to settings that exceeds 8GB, but no one plays competitively on those settings because they tank the FPS too much and makes things harder to see. These are all games that some people play literally every day and not a single other game.

You dont need a 9060 to run those games. Most of those run on a potato. LoL until recently ran on a SINGLE CORE CPU.

So it still makes no sense to buck-break the 9060 with a 8GB framebuffer for the esports club, you're still wasting silicon with a far too powerful GPU. esports would be looking for something like a $150 RX 9050 8GB.

 

[Burty117]

Think LoL and others Mobas, RTS like StarCraft 2 and of course (hero) shooters like Counter Strike, Overwatch, Marvel Rivals and Fortnite.

Fortnite is the only game that can be set to settings that exceeds 8GB, but no one plays competitively on those settings because they tank the FPS too much and makes things harder to see. These are all games that some people play literally every day and not a single other game.

But you're reinforcing my point, if you're on a budget and only want to play eSports titles, the GPU is way overkill, surely making a cutdown GPU that's half the size and you can sell for £100 less with 8GB, that actually makes sense, all the eSports titles in the world will run fast as anything, but you haven't paid for a load of GPU power you cannot use because of the VRAM limit.

The Radeon 7600, which was considered a lackluster GPU in most circles, plays LoL at 300+fps at 1440p with any old CPU.

It just doesn't make sense to spend so much money on an 8GB card if all you want to play are eSport titles.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

AMD is making a fraction of their GPUs. There is ridiculous demand, but they are doing the same thing NV is doing, only different. The demand for their server products is absurd. They're using most of their TSMC capacity to my CPUs instead of GPUs.

That is part of the problem with the 8 GB version of the 9060XT; the supply of the GPU chips is limited, RAM is not. Every 8 GB 9060 could have easily been a 16 GB card and still sold quite quickly. AMD should simply not have bothered with the 8 GB version until sales of the higher end model slowed down. (And the same applies for the 5060TI as well, to be fair).

 

[dman61992]

I used a GTX 1080 with 8GB of VRAM up until very recently and it did pretty good with 1080p gaming on newer titles. Not the best case scenario by far but it worked.

8GB on a new GPU today is just setting yourself up for needing to upgrade in the very near future unless you’re only playing older games like GTA V which will run on an Ryzen APU just fine too.

 

[Axeia]

But you're reinforcing my point, if you're on a budget and only want to play eSports titles, the GPU is way overkill, surely making a cutdown GPU that's half the size and you can sell for £100 less with 8GB, that actually makes sense, all the eSports titles in the world will run fast as anything, but you haven't paid for a load of GPU power you cannot use because of the VRAM limit.

The Radeon 7600, which was considered a lackluster GPU in most circles, plays LoL at 300+fps at 1440p with any old CPU.

It just doesn't make sense to spend so much money on an 8GB card if all you want to play are eSport titles.

But on the RX 9060 Fortnite on low settings 1440p hits 240fps. On high settings that already drops to about 120.
So if you have a 240hz screen and use some mix of low settings and high draw distance etc it'll likely still fall short of what is ideal.

Just trying to say that any eSports title will run fine on the 8gb version without the 8GB being the limiting factor. If they just marketed it as such and weren't trying to piggyback of the good press of the 16GB for other games I'd be fine with it.
It's the dishonesty of getting good press with one card and then trying to sell a worse version of it on the back of that... That's what rubs me the wrong way.


You also have to buy the latest generation at some point unless you're willing to buy used.

 

[TooQik]

I think it's time GPU manufacturers starting making GPUs with RAM slots that are upgradable. It would give the end user the choice on how much RAM they want to suit their needs.

 

[Burty117]

But on the RX 9060 Fortnite on low settings 1440p hits 240fps. On high settings that already drops to about 120.
So if you have a 240hz screen and use some mix of low settings and high draw distance etc it'll likely still fall short of what is ideal.

Just trying to say that any eSports title will run fine on the 8gb version without the 8GB being the limiting factor. If they just marketed it as such and weren't trying to piggyback of the good press of the 16GB for other games I'd be fine with it.
It's the dishonesty of getting good press with one card and then trying to sell a worse version of it on the back of that... That's what rubs me the wrong way.


You also have to buy the latest generation at some point unless you're willing to buy used.

You are correct, 8GB will run eSports titles fine, since 4GB and even 2GB would run most eSports titles fine, why not drop down to 4GB? Might as well save those extra pennies right? Leave the GPU exactly how it is, just lower the VRAM.

VRAM requirements (for 1080p):
LoL - 1GB min, 2GB rec
DOTA 2 - 2GB min, 4GB rec
OW 2 - 1GB mins, 2GB rec
Valorant - 1GB min, 2GB rec
Rocket League - 1GB min, 2GB rec
Apex Leagends - 1GB min, 8GB rec
Counter Strike 2 - 1GB min, 4GB rec
Fortnite - 2GB min, 8GB rec
Rainbow Six Siege - 2GB min, 4GB rec

Based on the above, wouldn't 8GB be basically a luxury for just eSports titles?

What AMD and Nvidia should be doing is drastically cutting the GPU down (rip out RT cores and AI cores entirely to save space) and then using 8GB VRAM, the GPU can be substantially cheaper, you can make far more of them, and they'd still be plenty of performance for eSports titles.

8GB on the current "lowest" GPU's doesn't make sense because the GPU is either severely under utilized by running eSport titles, or it's under utilized by running the latest and greatest because it runs out of VRAM.

*whilst searching for those VRAM requirements, I found someone running a 1060 3GB for Valorant and they get 200fps+. Imagine how small a die space you'd need today for 1060 levels of performance.

 

[Nictron]

AMD's marketing department is retarded or are controlled.
How to not to read the room.
Sometimes I think they are organised opposition to Nvidia with similar shareholders!

 

[GoldenGoat]

AMD and nvidia are opening the door for intel. Does the new Intel CEO have the vision to take it? Intel definitely could take a chunk of market share if they want to, just by putting out a capable GPU with enough RAM that is actually available without paying scalper markup prices.