AMD is launching a 4GB GPU in 2026, so we revisited the Radeon RX 6500 XT to see how 4GB and 8GB versions compare in modern games. The results are predictably ugly.
4GB vs. 8GB VRAM: The 1080p Benchmark
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
torvuswalds
Posts: 154 +354
The decision to use the RX 6500 XT (a 2022 card that was already a disaster at launch) to “demonstrate” what the upcoming 4GB RX 9050 will be like is methodologically weak and leans hard into drama.
Yes, both cards end up with 144 GB/s of bandwidth. That’s where the similarity ends. The 6500 XT is an ancient, heavily limited RDNA 2 part with a tiny cache, weak overall performance, and none of the architectural improvements in RDNA 4. Using it as a stand-in for a new (if cut down) Navi 44 card in 2026 games creates exaggerated gaps that don’t cleanly translate to the actual product.
A more honest approach would have been:
- Waiting for the real 4GB and 8GB 9050 cards, or
- Using a modern 8GB vs 16GB pair on current silicon that can actually run today’s titles at proper settings, so the VRAM effect is isolated without the confounding variables of a four-year-old GPU that was never competitive.
Instead, we got the most extreme historical example possible, packaged with heavy editorializing. That makes for stronger headlines and bigger percentage swings, but it doesn’t give readers a reliable picture of how the actual 4GB 9050 will behave.
Yes, both cards end up with 144 GB/s of bandwidth. That’s where the similarity ends. The 6500 XT is an ancient, heavily limited RDNA 2 part with a tiny cache, weak overall performance, and none of the architectural improvements in RDNA 4. Using it as a stand-in for a new (if cut down) Navi 44 card in 2026 games creates exaggerated gaps that don’t cleanly translate to the actual product.
A more honest approach would have been:
- Waiting for the real 4GB and 8GB 9050 cards, or
- Using a modern 8GB vs 16GB pair on current silicon that can actually run today’s titles at proper settings, so the VRAM effect is isolated without the confounding variables of a four-year-old GPU that was never competitive.
Instead, we got the most extreme historical example possible, packaged with heavy editorializing. That makes for stronger headlines and bigger percentage swings, but it doesn’t give readers a reliable picture of how the actual 4GB 9050 will behave.
poshflamingos
Posts: 364 +739
The coverage of the RX 9050 4 GB has looked way more aimless snark for the sake of farming drama on youtube than actual, actionable pressure on AMD.
It's not a problem that this product exists, shitty low-end products and shitty OEM-only products have always existed. Nvidia (GTX 1630/1650) and Intel (Arc A310) are still actively making and selling 4 GB cards. Arguing that AMD can't make this card because no 4 GB GPU should exist is asinine.
Instead, the pressure on AMD should be about naming this card correctly to avoid it being misleading. Name it RX 9040, and problem solved. That's the actual feedback tech reviewers should be giving them, not these sarcastic "4 GB sucks lol" videos/articles.
It's like when Nvidia announced the "4080 16 GB" and "4080 12 GB" in 2022. Nobody was arguing then that the "4080 12 GB" shouldn't exist, even though paying $800 for a 12 GB card was ridiculous. They were pressuring Nvidia for it to be named properly, and that's how we got the 4070 Ti (which was still a bad deal, but no longer misleading).
It's not a problem that this product exists, shitty low-end products and shitty OEM-only products have always existed. Nvidia (GTX 1630/1650) and Intel (Arc A310) are still actively making and selling 4 GB cards. Arguing that AMD can't make this card because no 4 GB GPU should exist is asinine.
Instead, the pressure on AMD should be about naming this card correctly to avoid it being misleading. Name it RX 9040, and problem solved. That's the actual feedback tech reviewers should be giving them, not these sarcastic "4 GB sucks lol" videos/articles.
It's like when Nvidia announced the "4080 16 GB" and "4080 12 GB" in 2022. Nobody was arguing then that the "4080 12 GB" shouldn't exist, even though paying $800 for a 12 GB card was ridiculous. They were pressuring Nvidia for it to be named properly, and that's how we got the 4070 Ti (which was still a bad deal, but no longer misleading).
LordVile95
Posts: 649 +369
So it runs fine in esports games, like it’s supposed to do and isn’t great at AAA titles regardless of if it has 8GB of VRAM or not. I could have told you that already.
Like what’s the point in testing in 007 aside to get a large percentage difference for a chart? 32 average isn’t really playable and neither is 1080p with FSR.
Like what’s the point in testing in 007 aside to get a large percentage difference for a chart? 32 average isn’t really playable and neither is 1080p with FSR.
torvuswalds
Posts: 154 +354
Remember, they are NOT using an RX 9050 in this article. The GPU they are using is a 4 year old RX 6500 XT.
To rehash others - there are no bad products, just bad pricing.
I have ZERO problems with a 4GB card being released. Hell, I have a 3050 TI in my laptop (a castrated 45w one at that) and I play all sorts of older games at 1080p with 60+ fps.
Now, I do have an issue with them marketing it as a card for new AAA games. But at the same time, even the most unknowledgeable person can do a simple web search for a review (and maybe find this one even).
I have ZERO problems with a 4GB card being released. Hell, I have a 3050 TI in my laptop (a castrated 45w one at that) and I play all sorts of older games at 1080p with 60+ fps.
Now, I do have an issue with them marketing it as a card for new AAA games. But at the same time, even the most unknowledgeable person can do a simple web search for a review (and maybe find this one even).
LordVile95
Posts: 649 +369
I’m aware, but the card was designed as an esports GPU and it still performs that function. I’d expect the 9050 to do the same but maybe perform better in newer titles like marvel rivals.
yRaz
Posts: 9,537 +16,822
I think the article pretty clearly shows that this is a memory bandwidth issue, not avram issue. I have a feeling we will see almost identical results with the 9050(that being 50% the performance of the 8GB)
torvuswalds
Posts: 154 +354
Using the worst historical example available maximizes the drama and the percentage gaps, which is why the headline can say “The RX 9050 4GB Looks Diabolical” even though no 9050 was tested. That’s the methodological weakness, regardless of whether bandwidth or capacity ends up being the bigger limiter on the real product.
LordVile95
Posts: 649 +369
I can gurantee you that on release they’ll test it like it’s a 5090 and moan that the 8GB model gets 35FPS and the 4GB gets 20 in a game either SKU can’t really run in stupid settings that no one will ever use and then when they use their normal benchmarking run and they’re in those charts the cards will be near identical. Like the 16GB and 8GB cards are that they’ve done several hit pieces on and then are silent when they’re within 1% of each other in standardised testing.
yRaz
Posts: 9,537 +16,822
I have a feeling this card will be perfectly fine for a kid or just someone with a hard budget that only plays esports or MMOs. It's hard to believe that there are people that don't chase the best graphics or play something other than games that make 90 class GPUs cry.
And considering how many games these days are designed with a spreadsheet in mind, hardly any modern titles are worth. One of the reasons that my 6700xt has lasted me as long as it has is that it is a 40k120 card for the games I spend the most time playing. EvE, ESO, OSRS and I also play a good bit of Baldurs Gate 3 and Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader.
It sucks that this is the market we're in, but this is just the market we are in. Also, these cards are only going to be available to OEMd so there's that....
LordVile95
Posts: 649 +369
It’s for a prebuilt where someone is going to play fortnight and rocket league with not much else, it does what it’s meant to do and provide basic dedicated graphics at a low for the current market price point.
Ironically I think the 8GB is the black sheep here. At a $280 MSRP what’s the point when the 9060 is available for around £300
yRaz
Posts: 9,537 +16,822
9060 is only available at that price because they aren't selling well and haven't had to do a fresh SKU. They probably had to make a fresh SKU at market prices for OEMs. If they have to make another run of 9060s, I promise you the price would be higher.
And just a thought, the most played game under 21 is currently Roblox and this would certainly play Roblox probably even at 4k just fine.
LordVile95
Posts: 649 +369
Dunno how long Roblox will be going for with all the scandals, losing 70% of its value over the last year and never posting a profit
yRaz
Posts: 9,537 +16,822
Like all things, the devil is in the details. Roblox is making massive amounts of money for executives. They make the management fees so high that they don't make a profit on paper. And I assure you, pretty much every game platform has similar issues. Fortnite was in the spotlight in 2024 over much of the same stuff.
As I commented before, I was playing CP2077 kind of fine until last year in a Sapphire Radeon RX470 4GB , yes the 4GB version (will not tell what CPU I use, but 24 GB of RAM is what I still have). a card I got in 2016. the game I played that taxed it the most was Metro Exodus, even in low. 1080p, FSR and tweaked settings (not minimum at all) and CP2077 was above 30 fps all the time, so for me, it was fine, anything above 30 is good for me (I even lock some games to 30 to hold temperature and power). then moved to a RTX3060ti, 8GB, and Im happy, training some AI models several times faster, using some local LLMs, and playing with better settings (CP2077 almost maxed). maybe in 8 or 10 years I may need another card.
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,961 +4,045
This:
And this:
That's everything there. This article is irrelevant to the 9050 4GB's use as a card.
Here's an actually useful review: 9050 4GB vs. 8GB where the 9050 8GB is achieving ~60 fps at whatever settings and the 4GB is not. That tells the story people need to see because:
The name is 100% deceptive. Calling it a 9040 in a prebuilt would be perfectly fine. Instead we have the AMD version of the regular 3050 vs the 3050 6GB, which was also intentionally deceptive and should have been called the 3040. At least this one is only gonna be in prebuilts but that just obfuscates the blame even more as that important 4GB spec is buried even deeper amongst all the other specs.
And this:
That's everything there. This article is irrelevant to the 9050 4GB's use as a card.
Here's an actually useful review: 9050 4GB vs. 8GB where the 9050 8GB is achieving ~60 fps at whatever settings and the 4GB is not. That tells the story people need to see because:
The name is 100% deceptive. Calling it a 9040 in a prebuilt would be perfectly fine. Instead we have the AMD version of the regular 3050 vs the 3050 6GB, which was also intentionally deceptive and should have been called the 3040. At least this one is only gonna be in prebuilts but that just obfuscates the blame even more as that important 4GB spec is buried even deeper amongst all the other specs.
Given all the articles that have been done showcasing poor 8GB performance this should not come as a surprise.
Title and article are clearly to generate clicks/traffic.
Hopefully there will be future articles with the 9050 in 4/8 jigglebyte flavors to see how the low-end hardware from AMD has matured in 4 years.
Perhaps including some e-sports/less demanding titles to showcase a more realistic use case for this tier of hardware.
Title and article are clearly to generate clicks/traffic.
Hopefully there will be future articles with the 9050 in 4/8 jigglebyte flavors to see how the low-end hardware from AMD has matured in 4 years.
Perhaps including some e-sports/less demanding titles to showcase a more realistic use case for this tier of hardware.
Ok so lets start phase 2 of this article with 007 First Light.
Similar threads
