Asus Dual GeForce RTX 5060 VS Palit GeForce RTX 5060 Infinity 3 OC

At their foundation, both cards share identical base hardware: the same 2280 MHz base clock, 3840 shading units, 120 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 1750 MHz memory speed. This means the two GPUs are built on the same silicon configuration, and any performance difference between them comes down to one variable: how aggressively the card is factory-overclocked.

That is where the Palit GeForce RTX 5060 Infinity 3 OC pulls ahead. Its GPU turbo reaches 2580 MHz versus 2497 MHz on the Asus Dual — a roughly 3.3% higher boost clock. Because floating-point throughput, pixel fill rate, and texture rate all scale directly with clock speed, this gap cascades across every compute metric: the Palit delivers 19.81 TFLOPS versus 19.18 TFLOPS, 123.8 GPixel/s versus 119.9 GPixel/s, and 309.6 GTexels/s versus 299.6 GTexels/s. In practice, a ~3% clock advantage rarely produces a dramatic fps difference in most titles, but it does represent a consistent, measurable edge across the board.

For this performance group, the Palit Infinity 3 OC holds a clear, if modest, advantage purely by virtue of its higher factory overclock. The Asus Dual is not meaningfully slower in real-world terms, but if raw out-of-the-box performance figures are the deciding factor, the Palit edges ahead on every throughput metric available in this data set.

On memory, these two cards are completely identical across every single spec provided. Both carry 8GB of GDDR7 over a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 28000 MHz for a peak bandwidth of 448 GB/s. There is nothing to differentiate them here — the memory subsystem is, for all practical purposes, the same component.

What matters more is understanding what these shared specs actually deliver. GDDR7 is a significant generational leap over GDDR6X, and the 448 GB/s bandwidth figure reflects that — feeding the GPU's shader array quickly enough to avoid memory stalls in most current workloads. The 128-bit bus is on the narrower side for a GPU at this tier, but GDDR7's raw speed compensates meaningfully. ECC memory support is also present on both, which adds a layer of data integrity useful in professional or compute workloads, though it is rarely a deciding factor for gaming use cases.

This group is a complete tie. No matter which card a buyer chooses, they are getting an identical memory configuration — same capacity, same speed, same bandwidth ceiling. Any performance difference between these two products will originate elsewhere, not from memory.

Feature parity is total between these two cards. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing, the combination that defines modern rendering capability — DX12 Ultimate ensures compatibility with the full suite of next-generation graphics features, while hardware ray tracing enables physically accurate lighting and shadows in supported titles. Neither card carries an LHR limiter, which is a non-issue for gaming but worth noting for compute users.

DLSS support is present on both, which is arguably the most practically valuable feature on this list for gamers. It allows AI-driven upscaling to recover frame rates at higher resolutions without a proportional hit to image quality. Intel Resizable BAR is also shared across both cards, enabling the CPU to access the full GPU frame buffer simultaneously — a feature that can yield modest but real performance gains in supported games and system configurations. The cap of 4 supported displays is identical as well, covering the needs of virtually all multi-monitor setups.

There is no differentiator to be found here — this group is a complete tie. Buyers choosing between the Asus Dual and the Palit Infinity 3 OC will get an identical software and feature ecosystem regardless of which card they pick.

Both cards offer an identical port layout: one HDMI 2.1b output and three DisplayPort outputs, totaling four physical connections — which aligns with their four-display maximum noted in the features group. Neither card includes USB-C, DVI, or mini DisplayPort outputs, so the connectivity selection is straightforward and consistent between them.

The inclusion of HDMI 2.1b is the most noteworthy detail here. This is the latest HDMI revision and supports very high refresh rates at 4K and beyond, as well as features like Variable Refresh Rate over HDMI — making it well suited for modern gaming monitors and TVs alike. Three DisplayPort outputs alongside it gives multi-monitor users plenty of flexibility without needing adapters or hubs for typical setups.

Once again, this group results in a complete tie. The port configuration is identical on both cards, and neither holds any connectivity advantage over the other.

Sharing the same Blackwell architecture, 5nm process node, and 21.9 billion transistors, these two cards are built from the same silicon foundation. PCIe 5.0 support is also common to both, ensuring neither will face interface bandwidth constraints on current or near-future platforms. The meaningful divergence in this group comes down to two practical considerations: power draw and physical dimensions.

The Palit Infinity 3 OC carries a 155W TDP versus 145W for the Asus Dual — a 10W gap that directly reflects the extra headroom the Palit needs to sustain its higher boost clock. In isolation, 10W is not dramatic, but it does mean slightly higher long-term energy consumption and marginally more heat output for the Palit, which may be relevant in thermally constrained or small-form-factor builds. The physical size difference is equally practical: the Asus Dual measures 228mm in length, while the Palit stretches to 291.9mm — nearly 64mm longer. That is a significant gap, and the Palit will not fit in cases where the Asus Dual would, making case compatibility a real consideration for compact builds.

Neither card has a universally superior profile here — the trade-offs point in different directions depending on the buyer's priorities. The Asus Dual holds a clear advantage for space-constrained or power-sensitive builds, while the Palit's higher TDP is the cost of its factory overclock. Builders with standard mid-tower cases and no power budget concerns will find the Palit's size acceptable, but those working with tighter constraints should factor both dimensions carefully before committing.