Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5060 Ti Eagle OC 16GB VS Gigabyte GeForce RTX 5060 Ti WindForce OC 16GB

At their core, the Eagle OC and WindForce OC share the same fundamental GPU architecture: identical base clocks of 2407 MHz, the same 4608 shading units, 144 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and matched memory speeds of 1750 MHz. This means both cards draw from the same well of raw computational resources, and any performance difference between them will come down entirely to how aggressively each is factory-overclocked.

That difference materializes in the boost clock: the Eagle OC reaches 2617 MHz versus the WindForce OC's 2587 MHz — a gap of 30 MHz, or roughly 1.2%. This cascades predictably into every throughput metric: floating-point performance of 24.12 TFLOPS versus 23.84 TFLOPS, texture rates of 376.8 GTexels/s versus 372.5 GTexels/s, and pixel rates of 125.6 GPixel/s versus 124.2 GPixel/s. In practice, a sub-1.5% compute advantage is well within benchmark noise and would be imperceptible in actual gaming framerates or workload runtimes.

The Eagle OC holds the technical edge in this group purely by virtue of its higher turbo clock, but the advantage is marginal enough that real-world performance should be considered effectively equal. Both cards also support double-precision floating point, which adds value for compute-adjacent tasks beyond gaming. If raw peak performance is the sole criterion, the Eagle OC wins on paper — but the WindForce OC trails by so little that thermal behavior and cooling efficiency (governed by the cooler design, not these specs) would likely matter far more to sustained performance in practice.

Memory is one area where there is simply nothing to separate these two cards. Both the Eagle OC and WindForce OC carry an identical 16GB of GDDR7 VRAM across a 128-bit bus, running at an effective speed of 28000 MHz for a peak bandwidth of 448 GB/s. Every single memory specification is a mirror image.

That said, the specs themselves tell a compelling story about the platform both cards share. GDDR7 is a meaningful generational step — its high effective clock allows a relatively narrow 128-bit bus to deliver bandwidth that would have required a much wider bus in previous generations. The result is 448 GB/s of throughput, which comfortably services the GPU's shader and texture workloads at 1080p and 1440p. The 16GB capacity, meanwhile, is generous for this performance tier, providing headroom for high-resolution texture packs, large AI model inference, and future titles with growing VRAM demands. Both cards also support ECC memory, a feature typically associated with professional workloads that adds error-correction capability.

This group is a definitive tie. Buyers should not factor memory specifications into their decision between these two models — every metric is identical, and any real-world difference in memory-bound scenarios will be nonexistent.

Functionally, these two cards are indistinguishable. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, ray tracing, and DLSS — the trifecta that defines the modern GeForce gaming experience. Ray tracing enables hardware-accelerated lighting and shadow rendering in supported titles, while DLSS uses AI upscaling to recover framerates that ray tracing costs, making the two features highly complementary in practice. Add Intel Resizable BAR support and the ability to drive up to 4 displays simultaneously, and both cards land in exactly the same place for any gaming or multi-monitor productivity use case.

The sole differentiator in this group is aesthetic: the Eagle OC includes RGB lighting, while the WindForce OC does not. For users building a themed system or who value visual customization inside a windowed case, this is a genuine advantage for the Eagle OC. For those indifferent to aesthetics — or running a closed case — it is entirely irrelevant to the card's utility.

On functional features, this group is a tie. The Eagle OC earns a narrow edge for buyers who care about RGB lighting, but that advantage is purely cosmetic and has no bearing on gaming performance, compatibility, or software capability.

Port configurations are identical across both cards. Each offers 3 DisplayPort outputs and 1 HDMI 2.1b port, totaling four physical display connections — which aligns with the four-display limit noted in the Features group. Neither card includes USB-C, DVI, or mini-DisplayPort outputs.

The quality of those ports matters as much as the quantity. HDMI 2.1b supports high refresh rates at 4K and beyond, making it well-suited for modern TVs and high-end monitors used as gaming displays. The three DisplayPort outputs give users flexible options for multi-monitor desktop setups or daisy-chaining compatible displays. The absence of USB-C is worth noting for users who own monitors that accept video over that connector, though it is not unusual at this product tier.

There is no differentiator here — both the Eagle OC and WindForce OC offer an identical port layout, and connectivity should play no role in choosing between them.

Underneath their different cooler designs, these two cards are built on exactly the same silicon. Both run on the Blackwell architecture, fabbed on a 5nm process with 21.9 billion transistors, and share a 180W TDP with PCIe 5.0 connectivity. The power budget is particularly relevant for system builders: at 180W, neither card demands an exotic PSU, and both will draw from the same power headroom in a given build.

The only measurable difference in this group is physical size. The Eagle OC measures 215 × 122 mm, while the WindForce OC is slightly more compact at 208 × 120 mm — a difference of 7mm in length and 2mm in height. In most full-size ATX cases this gap is irrelevant, but in smaller mid-tower or compact builds where clearance between the GPU and front panel or drive cages is tight, the WindForce OC's marginally smaller footprint could be the deciding factor for a clean fit.

For general system compatibility and platform specs, these cards are identical. The WindForce OC earns a modest practical edge for space-constrained builds thanks to its slightly smaller dimensions, but for the vast majority of users in standard cases, this distinction will never come into play.