• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD launches $280 9050

M

Marees

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
4,714
new AMD Radeon™ RX 9050 graphics card, which expands the Radeon™ RX 9000 Series portfolio with an affordable option that brings the latest AMD RDNA™ 4 gaming technologies to mainstream gamers in the APJ and Latin American markets at a SEP of $279 USD.
Radeon RX 9050 key specs:

Architecture: AMD RDNA 4

Compute Units: 16

VRAM: 8GB GDDR6

Game Clock / Boost Clock: 1.92 GHz / Up to 2.60 GHz

TBP: 92W

To learn more about the Radeon RX 9050 GPU, and the Radeon RX 9000 Series graphics cards, click here.

AMD launches the RX 9050, and it's even more entry-level than expected - update: it's $279 and limited to certain regions​

News
By Jacob Ridley
Last updated 59 minutes ago
Oh, and the 4 GB version is OEM-only.

https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/gr...-and-its-even-more-entry-level-than-expected/

Only Best Buy has the card for sale so far, inside a CyberPower gaming PC for $890. This includes an RX 9050 4 GB among its shoestring specification.
 
Marees said:
Only Best Buy has the card for sale so far, inside a CyberPower gaming PC for $890. This includes an RX 9050 4 GB among its shoestring specification.
Click to expand...

AMD actually rallied against 4 GB cards back in 2022.

"Competitive products at a similar entry level price-point are offering up to a maximum of 4GB of VRAM, which is evidently not enough for today's games," AMD said in a blog post. "Go Beyond 4GB of Video Memory to Crank Up your settings. Play on Radeon RX Series GPUs with 6GB or 8GB of VRAM and enjoy gaming at Max settings."
 
due to memory situation, AMD might launch only one chip of RDNA 5 (AT2 — the successor to 9070xt, 9070, 9070gre, & potentially a 9070xtx too)

this means existing RDNA 4 cards would continue until RDNA 6 is launched (2029 / 2030)

so we could witness AMD selling the 9050 4gb in 2030 !!
 
that make the 3060 revival or the 5050 look powerful in comparison, it seem, it is quite the low amount of gpu cores to "spend" 8GB of nice memory on right now, less aggressive bidding if they did not had yield issues would make so much more sense technically, but maybe it break the line up pricing/scaling.
 
Last edited:
Would be interested in it if there was an SFF model. Wonder how it stacks up against a 4060 SFF. Definitely better than my 3050 6GB SFF by way of vram alone.
 
Miss me with that 8gb, not that I was in the market for it anyway. They might as well not launch anything until devs learn to optimize or memory becomes available again.
 
At what point is it better to just use integrated graphics? They've gotten pretty good nowadays in mini PCs.
 
MavericK said:
At what point is it better to just use integrated graphics? They've gotten pretty good nowadays in mini PCs.
Click to expand...
desktop apus will never have an iGPU more powerful than this

but laptop APUs will have better igpu than this starting 2028
 
I really hope the industry can agree on and deploy its neural compression stuff ASAP; it could make 8GB cards viable again for high-rez gaming.
Not that this card would be viable for 4K, but it would make 8GB overkill for most new titles.
 
MavericK said:
At what point is it better to just use integrated graphics? They've gotten pretty good nowadays in mini PCs.
Click to expand...

The old nForce motherboards weren't too bad for onboard graphics. Maybe that's the direction things need to go... Off the CPU, no dedicated GPU, but on the MB itself.

Although, I do suspect at some point with AMD and NVIDIA releasing older models and having issues with releasing newer models due to their lack of consumer focus and supply issues (well, where their supply goes), integrated graphics might end up surpassing some of the lower end cards and be a viable option. Wouldn't mind seeing a nice integrated GPU with unified memory (well, if RAM prices ever come back to earth) that's worth a damn. Even if it's equal to a 3060 or 4050 or something, that wouldn't be too bad at all especially for onboard.
 
Ur_Mom said:
The old nForce motherboards weren't too bad for onboard graphics. Maybe that's the direction things need to go... Off the CPU, no dedicated GPU, but on the MB itself.

Although, I do suspect at some point with AMD and NVIDIA releasing older models and having issues with releasing newer models due to their lack of consumer focus and supply issues (well, where their supply goes), integrated graphics might end up surpassing some of the lower end cards and be a viable option. Wouldn't mind seeing a nice integrated GPU with unified memory (well, if RAM prices ever come back to earth) that's worth a damn. Even if it's equal to a 3060 or 4050 or something, that wouldn't be too bad at all especially for onboard.
Click to expand...

Chipset IGPs have if anything even worse performance limitations than CPU ones. They're limited to standard DDR ram, but today the latency is lower for something on the CPU. They're also more thermally limited since there isn't space for a big cooler and fan.

To make one that's competitive with a low end card you'd essentially need to embed an entire GPU+GDDR in the board. While you wouldn't need all the space of an expansion card even a mobile GPU takes a decent amount of extra space vs a southbridge. You'd need to cool it somehow, either with a big cooler looming over the ram, or a water block. Lastly you'd end up increasing the cost of the board by an amount similar to a low end GPU card.

The only place I could maybe see something like that being viable is in the SFF gaming segment; but my understanding was that ever larger GPUs have really sqeezed that segment hard. I'm not sure if it'd be viable these days.
 
DanNeely said:
Chipset IGPs have if anything even worse performance limitations than CPU ones. They're limited to standard DDR ram, but today the latency is lower for something on the CPU. They're also more thermally limited since there isn't space for a big cooler and fan.

To make one that's competitive with a low end card you'd essentially need to embed an entire GPU+GDDR in the board. While you wouldn't need all the space of an expansion card even a mobile GPU takes a decent amount of extra space vs a southbridge. You'd need to cool it somehow, either with a big cooler looming over the ram, or a water block. Lastly you'd end up increasing the cost of the board by an amount similar to a low end GPU card.

The only place I could maybe see something like that being viable is in the SFF gaming segment; but my understanding was that ever larger GPUs have really sqeezed that segment hard. I'm not sure if it'd be viable these days.
Click to expand...

Yea, good points. I guess it was easier back then because GPU's weren't so advanced, power hungry, VRAM speed dependent beasts even for the low end.
 
i'm mildly curious to see benchmarks, but i know they're going to be pretty abysmal. at least the 4GB version is OEM only but wow...even at 1080p, how usable is that these days? less intensive titles i guess. I remember trying to play doom eternal on my old GTX 970 4GB and the lack of VRAM really held it back. Was not a great experience.
 
THRESHIN said:
i'm mildly curious to see benchmarks, but i know they're going to be pretty abysmal. at least the 4GB version is OEM only but wow...even at 1080p, how usable is that these days? less intensive titles i guess. I remember trying to play doom eternal on my old GTX 970 4GB and the lack of VRAM really held it back. Was not a great experience.
Click to expand...
30% slower than the 5050

in the range of 3060
 
TPU has the 8GB card between a Vega 64 on the low end and a 2060 Super on the high end.
The 4GB card is slotted between a Vega 56 on the low end and a 5600XT on the high end.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-9050-8-gb.c4424

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-9050-4-gb.c4404

Not sure if they benched the cards yet since they haven't put up any reviews.

Japanese site GDM has the 8GB benched against a 5050.

1785545811711.png
 
I’d be interested in seeing what this card could do in modern potato mode.

(Min settings with performance FSR 4 targeting 1080p)

Would still beat most consoles I would think…
 
CAD4466HK said:
TPU has the 8GB card between a Vega 64 on the low end and a 2060 Super on the high end.
The 4GB card is slotted between a Vega 56 on the low end and a 5600XT on the high end.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-9050-8-gb.c4424

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-rx-9050-4-gb.c4404

Not sure if they benched the cards yet since they haven't put up any reviews.

Japanese site GDM has the 8GB benched against a 5050.

View attachment 817984
Click to expand...
WTF is up with those doom scores on Nvidia….
 
Ur_Mom said:
Yea, good points. I guess it was easier back then because GPU's weren't so advanced, power hungry, VRAM speed dependent beasts even for the low end.
Click to expand...

That was a factor. The second major one was from the other end, IIRC most IGPs of the time were relatively much smaller vs the CPU or chipset die (they existed because the minimum size of the chip due to the space needed for IO pins was less than the amount of die area needed for all the other components). At the time we had IIRC x30 and x40 GPUs in most generations and x20 and x10 in some; with those tiers typically not just using standard DDR not the more expensive GDDR but IIRC being slow enough that DDR wasn't that large a performance penalty. As IGPs got larger over time, the gap between the minimum useful with a new CPU GPU and the practical maximum shrank and we gradually saw the lowest tiers of cards fade away. At most they lingered as specialist models with large numbers of display outputs when IGPs could only drive 2 screens. (These were useful for computers running banks of digital signs.)
 
Last edited:
I think a low cost 4GB card could be useful in workstation/desktop environments. You don’t need a ton of memory, but it would be nice to have access to the hardware acceleration for things like photoshop, handbrake, video encoding, etc. You don’t need vast resources for that, you just need access to the technology period.

You would have to market it as a desktop media creator card, but the issue is that there is no financial reason for Nvidia or AMD to even consider such a market.
 
These budget cards are moving into the price range of what my RX 9060 XT 16GB two fan model cost me at $369 new, grad I didn't wait on buying one on release day.
 
4GB? Not even a consideration.

8GB bare minimum.

12GB and higher is where I prefer to be at. Glad I bought the card I have when I did
 
It even makes my Sparkle Titan Intel Arc A770 16GB worth buying all over again and again at $329 as to just be laying in the box collecting dust, sold my RTX 3070 because of vram limit and bought the RX 9060 XT 16GB to kind of replace it.
 
DogsofJune said:
This is my sentiment as well. I hate pulling the trigger even on 12gb let alone 8 or less, unless it has a very specific need.
Click to expand...


I couldn't afford to replace my 3080 when I bought parts to refresh the rest of my system starting late last year.

Watching prices continue to soar I'm really hoping that card has at least a few more years in it. (And also regretting not getting a 4080 when they came out because the covid era chaos meant I initially bought a 3070 to replace my 1080 and was felt overbudget when I finally was able to get the 3080.)
 
LukeTbk said:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/nvidia-partner-launches-a-6gb-rtx-3050-in-2026-did-anyone-ask-for-this

Seem to make a bit more sense, spending only 6GB of very slow GDDR6 (14 gbps) seem a good match for the small GA107, not burning good memory on a very weak gpu.
Click to expand...
There’s also a bunch of non gaming applications for a card of this type.

Little GPU’s like this work very well and n smaller work stations that need GPU acceleration or features, or support for multiple displays, but don’t necessarily need the power of anything larger.

I have plenty of systems running hardware like a p400 or a T1000 because they need some functionality they provide but not the power of anything larger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top