Nvidia RTX 5060 reportedly launching on May 19, one day after AMD's Radeon RX 9060 XT

[Daniel Sims]

Something to look forward to: Computex looks set to be the battleground where Nvidia and AMD reveal their mainstream GPUs from the latest generation. Nvidia's quiet unveiling of the RTX 5060 Ti and 5060 has sparked suspicion that it wants to downplay the 8GB VRAM on both cards.

Nvidia told board partners it will launch the RTX 5060 on May 19, anonymous sources told VideoCardz. Reviews will go live the same day, likely giving customers little time to weigh third-party benchmarks before buying what may become the most popular card in the Blackwell lineup.

The company revealed full specifications earlier this month but withheld launch and review embargo dates. With 3,840 CUDA cores, a 2.5GHz boost clock, and a $300 price tag, the RTX 5060 offers slightly better value than the 4060 and a meaningful upgrade over the 3060 – aside from its limited VRAM.

Marketing for the RTX 5060 Ti and standard 5060 has focused primarily on the 16GB Ti variant. Our reviews show the $430 GPU brings decent 4K gaming within reach for mainstream consumers, but cutting its memory pool to 8GB completely changes the story.

Nvidia likely delayed reviews of the 8GB variant to obscure severe performance limitations. Our results show that this amount of VRAM already bottlenecks many high-end games – and the gap will likely widen as new titles demand more memory.

This story will repeat with the RTX 5060, which only offers an 8GB configuration. Steam survey data consistently ranks 60-class cards among the most popular, making the 5060 a key release for Nvidia. However, the release-day embargo suggests the company may be setting a trap for many of its customers.

Meanwhile, the release date of the RTX 5060 falls one day after AMD's response to the 16GB RTX 5060 Ti – the Radeon RX 9060 XT. While details on AMD's latest mainstream cards remain scarce, including the release window for the standard 9060, the company is likely to follow Nvidia's VRAM configuration pattern, frustrating users who can't afford to spend over $300 on a GPU.

Supply chain disruptions from inflation and tariffs have impacted Nvidia and AMD, each unwilling to sacrifice their margins on memory modules. This reluctance will likely hinder progress in GPU development, limiting meaningful improvements at the mainstream price tier.

Permalink to story:

Nvidia RTX 5060 reportedly launching on May 19, one day after AMD's Radeon RX 9060 XT

 

[noel24]

DOA. With some 80% of shaders of Ti, 5060 8GB will still be gimped. 8GB cards should be relagated to the bottom dollar, probably sub-$200 "e-titles" cards. Giving that nVdia charges 6$ for 1GB of GDDR7, and It probably costs Them half of that, and AMD pays $2-3 for GDDR6, It would be probably more logical to give 5060 12 or even 16GB of GDDR6. But, as Hardware Unboxed claims, It's probably about planned obsolecence, not the speed.

 

[3ogdy]

nVidia doesn't realize that people who don't know that much about hardware, but buy a new PC with "nVidia GeForce video card ", will only be disappointed when they see it doesn't run current games properly. That's in spite of the fact that it's a supposedly mid-range GPU we're talking about here.

It's about expectations, but you need the knowledge first, which most people don't have. The fact that both the 8GB and the 16GB carry the same name doesn't help either.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Oh yeah! They're launching the 5060Ti 8GB all over again.

 

[3ogdy]

Oh yeah! They're launching the 5060Ti 8GB all over again.

I hear 5060 SUPER will have an upgrade to 4GB of RAM.

 

[DrSuess]

8GB of RAM is more than enough when gaming at a resolution of 480P.

 

[daffy duck]

At least call it a 5050 Ti and cut the price $50+ to save total embarrassment. They learned nothing at all from the 4060 debacle. Arrogance in the extreme!

 

[AlexIL]

Gimmics to enforce already nonexistent growth. It's not for gamers but for investors.

People don't buy unnecessary things anymore and gaming machine certainly not a necessity.

 

[0dium]

DOA. With some 80% of shaders of Ti, 5060 8GB will still be gimped. 8GB cards should be relagated to the bottom dollar, probably sub-$200 "e-titles" cards. Giving that nVdia charges 6$ for 1GB of GDDR7, and It probably costs Them half of that, and AMD pays $2-3 for GDDR6, It would be probably more logical to give 5060 12 or even 16GB of GDDR6. But, as Hardware Unboxed claims, It's probably about planned obsolecence, not the speed.

You wanna do AI? You need VRAM. Buy our expensive GPUs. Don't wanna do AI? Too bad. Still gonna pay for that

 

[takaozo]

Knowing Nvidia set MSRP based on performance vs old gens, $300 card will bring this somewhere between 4060 and 4060Ti performance. The only plus is MFG.
For 1080p gaming with UE5 it's way sub 60fps.
What time we live in, when you need $1000 real price card to get 1080p - 60fps in latest games.

 

[robero4]

Knowing Nvidia set MSRP based on performance vs old gens, $300 card will bring this somewhere between 4060 and 4060Ti performance. The only plus is MFG.
For 1080p gaming with UE5 it's way sub 60fps.
What time we live in, when you need $1000 real price card to get 1080p - 60fps in latest games.

Ohhh cmon...Steve said 5060ti is 4k capable....

 

[Liranan]

Ohhh cmon...Steve said 5060ti is 4k capable....

It is, if you imagine the card running games rather than actually doing it.

 

[godrilla]

8GB of RAM is more than enough when gaming at a resolution of 480P.

Just don't enable frame generation you'll break it. Potato graphics/popping in textures/stutter fest!

 

[Megalomaniac]

There are plenty of people out there with 1080p monitors and this is all the card they'll need. It's sad that 8GB is still even being used. 16GB VRAM should be the standard.

 

[takaozo]

Ohhh cmon...Steve said 5060ti is 4k capable....

Yes, but he forgot to mention the game he tested 4k

 

[Watzupken]

Knowing Nvidia set MSRP based on performance vs old gens, $300 card will bring this somewhere between 4060 and 4060Ti performance. The only plus is MFG.
For 1080p gaming with UE5 it's way sub 60fps.
What time we live in, when you need $1000 real price card to get 1080p - 60fps in latest games.

I think you need to also consider the minimal frame rates. Generally, when you run out of VRAM, the performance consistency takes a dive and you end up with a very stuttery experience. Moreover, DLSS frame generation also requires VRAM for the Tensor cores, which will also jostles with the GPU for very limited 8GB VRAM. So it is not going to help cards with just 8GB or lower amounts of VRAM.

 

[takaozo]

I think you need to also consider the minimal frame rates. Generally, when you run out of VRAM, the performance consistency takes a dive and you end up with a very stuttery experience. Moreover, DLSS frame generation also requires VRAM for the Tensor cores, which will also jostles with the GPU for very limited 8GB VRAM. So it is not going to help cards with just 8GB or lower amounts of VRAM.

I currently own a 3070 and I know all about 8GB. Indiana Jones was out of memory for me. The only game that couldn't maintain 60 fps min was Stalker2, had to turn on TAA since DLSS looked dirty to me. Also don't play with Ultra settings in mind, never did. For me it's 60 fps min and max 165 since my 2K display can't handle more than this.
The only game that will make me buy another GPU is GTA6. When this comes out I will re-consider my options. But no $1000 GPU that's for sure.

 

[human7]

nVidia doesn't realize that people who don't know that much about hardware, but buy a new PC with "nVidia GeForce video card ", will only be disappointed when they see it doesn't run current games properly. That's in spite of the fact that it's a supposedly mid-range GPU we're talking about here.

It's about expectations, but you need the knowledge first, which most people don't have. The fact that both the 8GB and the 16GB carry the same name doesn't help either.

You're right, but I think they're banking on people not knowing what a disappointing gaming experience is, compared to a good one, too. If these people have always bought mid-tier GPUs or this is their first one, unless they read the reviews, they probably won't know.

In any case, the penny pinching by Nvidia doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Good news for AMD and Intel though, they should take advantage of this situation.

 

[manowar51]

I definitely want manufacturers to give us as much as possible for as little money as possible. But the 8GB limitation is definitely overstated. I have an 8GB 3070Ti on a 1440p panel and only in one game ever have I noticed the limitation. And that was for a HD Texture pack that was optional. Games still run just fine at 1080p and 1440p on an 8GB card.

This thing is rumoured to cost $300, which is less than most skilled Americans earn in a day. I'm not going to get too upset that it doesn't have more VRAM myself.

Also, if you're upset at this, you should be blaming the lack of competition. And I dont think Radeon counts anymore, the market consistently tells us they don't want Radeons.

 

[Lounds]

Nvidia keeping my 3060ti relevant still with their absolute tightness on VRAM. Fully expecting a 50 series super with 12GB for the 5060, 18GB for 5070 and 24GB for the 5080.

 

[ZackL04]

Gimmics to enforce already nonexistent growth. It's not for gamers but for investors.

People don't buy unnecessary things anymore and gaming machine certainly not a necessity.

Oh I wouldn't be too sure about that. Maybe people live paycheck to paycheck and buy this kind of unnecessary crap all day long.

 

[human7]

This thing is rumoured to cost $300, which is less than most skilled Americans earn in a day. I'm not going to get too upset that it doesn't have more VRAM myself.

Also, if you're upset at this, you should be blaming the lack of competition. And I dont think Radeon counts anymore, the market consistently tells us they don't want Radeons.

Minor quibble: $300 * 365 = $109,500, so no, most people don't earn that much in a day, it's approximately half of that using the median, excluding taxes. To your point: it isn't that expensive, true.

In any case, agreed that competition is the real issue here, or the lack of it. Intel needs to release a high-end Battlemage or get Celestial out sooner if they want to compete, and AMD claimed to make the play for market share this round but they need to be a little more aggressive about it if they want to succeed IMO.

 

[manowar51]

Minor quibble: $300 * 365 = $109,500, so no, most people don't earn that much in a day, it's approximately half of that using the median, excluding taxes. To your point: it isn't that expensive, true.

In any case, agreed that competition is the real issue here, or the lack of it. Intel needs to release a high-end Battlemage or get Celestial out sooner if they want to compete, and AMD claimed to make the play for market share this round but they need to be a little more aggressive about it if they want to succeed IMO.

You dont work 365 days a year. And my salary is higher than $109k and im nothing special. I didnt go to college or anything like that. The average salary in Oregon (Where I live) is $59k a year according to google. You will likely work 260 days of the 365 (based on 5x52 weeks), so the average Oregonian is earning $226 a day. But note I said "skilled" Americans. Which would bring the average up. I earn about $400 a day as an IT field tech and my girlfriend who is a hygienist earns even more as she earns the same wage but over 4 days a week rather than 5.

So I think my math was pretty good actually!

 

[mailpup]

So I think my math was pretty good actually!

It is. My regular salary was based on 261 work days per year not accounting for leap years.