AMD Radeon RX 9050 4GB: It's a Scam

[Steve]

AMD's Radeon RX 9050 4GB shares a name with the faster 8GB model, but half the VRAM and memory bandwidth make this OEM-only GPU a far worse deal than buyers may realize.

Read the full article here.

AMD Radeon RX 9050 4GB: It's a Scam

 

[dangh]

The only area I see this card be somewhat usable is a local media server, and this card doing transcoding, as it handles av1. but, integrated gpus in modern apu will do the same for less, and even discrete intel gpus will do same for less.
we are in a really bad time for home gaming or labing.

 

[yRaz]

Calling it a scam is a stretch. It's a simple display adapter and while APUs are great, this does fill a performance gap. APU only systems would be great if AMD would stop pairing the 8060xt with their extremely expensive SKUs. We are also in an economic era where people can't just save stop being poor and save more money. We are living in an era where families making over $100K US are riding the poverty line. These aren't McDonald's money people, they're engineers and STEM people. I also don't buy into the ideology that if you're poor then you shouldn't be spending time or money on entertainment that seems to be popular.

 

[LordVile95]

Out of touch as per.

This is fine for esports and is for OEMs only. It replaces the 6500XT which it outperforms easily and offers newer features like AV1.

Overall it’s fine. If anything is a scam it’s the 8GB model that’s priced too closely to the 9060. Not everything has to be a gaming behemoth.

This seems to be like the 8GB card hit pieces that have no connection to reality.

 

[yRaz]

Out of touch as per.

This is fine for esports and is for OEMs only. It replaces the 6500XT which it outperforms easily and offers newer features like AV1.

Overall it’s fine. If anything is a scam it’s the 8GB model that’s priced too closely to the 9060. Not everything has to be a gaming behemoth.

This seems to be like the 8GB card hit pieces that have no connection to reality.

Frankly, I think this card makes the most sense in 16GB systems where you can't give up 4GB of system ram to an APU. That's where I think this makes the most sense is to prevent further performance hits on already RAM constrained systems. It's popular to talk about how 8GB of VRAM isn't enough these days but about system RAM?

 

[LordVile95]

Frankly, I think this card makes the most sense in 16GB systems where you can't give up 4GB of system ram to an APU. That's where I think this makes the most sense is to prevent further performance hits on already RAM constrained systems. It's popular to talk about how 8GB of VRAM isn't enough these days but about system RAM?

Systems are shipping with 8GB of RAM again due to cost so even more so.

Overall though it’ll play CSGO, Fortnite and likely CoD at playable frame rates at 1080p which is all it’s really meant to handle.

 

[Loadedaxe]

I think we're confusing “this particular 9050 is badly named and overpriced” with “a 4GB GPU shouldn't exist.”

There absolutely should be a bottom tier discrete GPU. Not everybody is playing the latest AAA game at Ultra. Plenty of people need an inexpensive card for older games, esports, WoW, office PCs, or simply to have dedicated graphics and VRAM instead of leaning on an APU and eating into system memory.

A few years ago I built a PC for my granddaughter and used an RX 6500 XT 8GB. Not just because it was cheap, but because she simply didn't require anything more. She plays LoL, WoW, CS, and Fortnite. Is it a beast? No. But it gets the job done, she still uses it today, and it's still doing exactly what I bought it to do. Throwing a $400-$500 GPU into that machine would have accomplished absolutely nothing except spending more money.

The problem isn't that the RX 9050 4GB exists. The problem is AMD cut the memory bus in half, crippled the bandwidth, and then gave a GPU that's roughly 30-40% slower the exact same name as the 8GB card.

Call it an RX 9040, price it like an RX 9040, and suddenly there's nothing scandalous about it.

Bottom tier hardware has a purpose. Bottom tier hardware masquerading as the model above it is the problem.

 

[LordVile95]

I think we're confusing “this particular 9050 is badly named and overpriced” with “a 4GB GPU shouldn't exist.”

There absolutely should be a bottom tier discrete GPU. Not everybody is playing the latest AAA game at Ultra. Plenty of people need an inexpensive card for older games, esports, WoW, office PCs, or simply to have dedicated graphics and VRAM instead of leaning on an APU and eating into system memory.

A few years ago I built a PC for my granddaughter and used an RX 6500 XT 8GB. Not just because it was cheap, but because she simply didn't require anything more. She plays LoL, WoW, CS, and Fortnite. Is it a beast? No. But it gets the job done, she still uses it today, and it's still doing exactly what I bought it to do. Throwing a $400-$500 GPU into that machine would have accomplished absolutely nothing except spending more money.

The problem isn't that the RX 9050 4GB exists. The problem is AMD cut the memory bus in half, crippled the bandwidth, and then gave a GPU that's roughly 30-40% slower the exact same name as the 8GB card.

Call it an RX 9040, price it like an RX 9040, and suddenly there's nothing scandalous about it.

Bottom tier hardware has a purpose. Bottom tier hardware masquerading as the model above it is the problem.

It’s always been done though. The GTX 1060 3GB was a cut down GPU and it applies to basically every mobile GPU. They also released the same GPU in the RX 480 three times under different names. It’s also not a card you can go out and buy.

 

[Achaios]

This is the year of our Lord 2026.

The 9050 4GB is, according to Techspot's Relative Performance GPU chart, about 10-15% slower than a stock GTX 1080 8GB in the good scenario where the 9050 4GB isn't running out of VRAM.

If you play games that require more than 4GB VRAM or if you play old games at 1440p+, this 2026 card won't be sufficient. Let that sink in.

The 1080 was a year 2016 GPU. Ten years have passed since the 1080 and 1080ti and they are still releasing GPUs that are significantly slower.

BTW, according to the same Techpowerup source, the 9050 4GB would be 43% to 48% slower than a stock 1080ti in the good scenario wherein it won't need to use more than 4GB.

 

[LordVile95]

This is the year of our Lord 2026.

The 9050 4GB is, according to Techspot's Relative Performance GPU chart, about 10-15% slower than a stock GTX 1080 8GB in the good scenario where the 9050 4GB isn't running out of VRAM.

If you play games that require more than 4GB VRAM or if you play old games at 1440p+, this 2026 card won't be sufficient. Let that sink in.

The 1080 was a year 2016 GPU. Ten years have passed since the 1080 and 1080ti and they are still releasing GPUs that are significantly slower.

BTW, according to the same Techpowerup source, the 9050 4GB would be 43% to 48% slower than a stock 1080ti in the good scenario wherein it won't need to use more than 4GB.

Don’t use GPU relative performance they’re not accurate. For example the 1080Ti was about the same performance as a 6600 which was a mid tier card and the 1080 should be at the 9050 4GB or below it. The 1080 has a larger VRAM buffer but the actual chip isn’t fast enough for that to make a difference

 

[Skully]

Scam - No. Deceptive - Yes.

As they say - there's no bad products, just bad prices. Not sure I 100% agree with that, there are outliers, but I understand the intention.

 

[Achaios]

Don’t use GPU relative performance they’re not accurate. For example the 1080Ti was about the same performance as a 6600 which was a mid tier card and the 1080 should be at the 9050 4GB or below it. The 1080 has a larger VRAM buffer but the actual chip isn’t fast enough for that to make a difference

Αccording to the same resource, Techpowerup, a stock 1080ti is 7% faster than a stock radeon 6600XT.

Yeah no, compared to Techpowerup's expertise and yours, I'd go with Techpowerup's.

 

[LordVile95]

Αccording to the same resource, Techpowerup, a stock 1080ti is 7% faster than a stock radeon 6600XT.

Yeah no, compared to Techpowerup's expertise and yours, I'd go with Techpowerup's.

Do they have benchmarks showing it or is it an estimation based on relative performance nonsense

Based on numbers from Techspot in their 6600XT and 3060Ti reviews the 6600XT is clear of the 1080Ti. With the 6600 sitting between the 1080 and Ti models. This gap will have widened with the reduction and later removal of support for pascal GPUs along with the usage of more modern development techniques and APIs such as DX12 and Vulkan

 

[Evrsr]

These charts really needed a 6600 or 7600 in there. Maybe an RTX 5050.

Dunno why the 6500XT is in the mix, it barely sold.

 

[LordVile95]

These charts really needed a 6600 or 7600 in there. Maybe an RTX 5050.

Dunno why the 6500XT is in the mix, it barely sold.

Becaure the 6500XT is what it’s replacing.

When Steve and Tim have an axe to grind they generally limit their comparisons to what they have to or want to to push the agenda so you can’t look at the issue in context. The 6500XT has to be here because it’s the direct replacement and the B570 is there as a smokescreen as it isn’t widely covered and it’s not a good reference point you can easily compare to the wider stack.

 

[Evrsr]

Becaure the 6500XT is what it’s replacing.

When Steve and Tim have an axe to grind they generally limit their comparisons to what they have to or want to to push the agenda so you can’t look at the issue in context. The 6500XT has to be here because it’s the direct replacement and the B570 is there as a smokescreen as it isn’t widely covered and it’s not a good reference point you can easily compare to the wider stack.

I wouldn't say an axe to grind but Steve is really pissed off. It is understandable, I think this should be a 9040 and much cheaper but whatever.

If he had looked at laptop chips, he'd go bananas. A Ryzen 5(!) 40 is a Zen 2 chip with four cores nicely repackaged for the clueless buyer.
It is slower than the mainstream i5 from 2018 but AMD proudly sticks a "Ryzen 5" on it: Mobile Ryzen Rebrands article

Then Ryzen 3 chip with upgraded Zen 3 cores and double the GPU. Nobody could make this stuff up.
Then Ryzen 7 chips that are still Zen 3, it is ridiculous. At least slot all those under Ryzen 3 where they should be these days.

 

[mgilbert]

This is a GPU for PC buyers that don't intend to game, and it's fine for that purpose. Calling it a scam is a bit hyperbolic, but TechSpot doesn't seem to know that such buyers exist. I've never once seen them publish an article about productivity monitors, for example. They seem to think we are all gamers, and gamers only.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Αccording to the same resource, Techpowerup, a stock 1080ti is 7% faster than a stock radeon 6600XT.

Yeah no, compared to Techpowerup's expertise and yours, I'd go with Techpowerup's.

Techpowerup's numbers were taken many years apart and using different games. W1zzard (who does all TPU's testing) has said not to depend on card comparisons that were tested at very different times.

In general 1080Ti = 2070 = 3060 = 6600XT. There will be variance.

And based on this video:

The 8GB 9050 is a little faster overall than the 3060. Putting this 4GB bus-limited version notably slower than all. Yeah I'd guess it's at about a 1080 or 5600 XT. We'll see if/when someone compares them.

 

[LordVile95]

I wouldn't say an axe to grind but Steve is really pissed off. It is understandable, I think this should be a 9040 and much cheaper but whatever.

Yet he never moans about mobile GPUs being named like they are. It also doesn’t have a real price because you can’t buy it. Also it can’t really be much cheaper. With inflation to compare to pascal for example it would have been a $140 GPU in 2026 and then factor in VRAM and silicon costs you’re taking closer to $100. So effectively if this came out ten years ago it would cost the same as a 1050. Unfortunately GF and Samsung aren’t advanced enough for these GPUs and they’re forced to use the more expensive TSMC unlike the 1050 and 400 series

If he had looked at laptop chips, he'd go bananas. A Ryzen 5(!) 40 is a Zen 2 chip with four cores nicely repackaged for the clueless buyer.
It is slower than the mainstream i5 from 2018 but AMD proudly sticks a "Ryzen 5" on it: Mobile Ryzen Rebrands article

Then Ryzen 3 chip with upgraded Zen 3 cores and double the GPU. Nobody could make this stuff up.
Then Ryzen 7 chips that are still Zen 3, it is ridiculous. At least slot all those under Ryzen 3 where they should be these days.

And then look at the GPUs that are listed as the desktop parts but aren’t anywhere close. I think the 5090 has half the cores of the desktop version.

 

[Alfonso Maruccia]

This industry needs a hard reset. A VERY hard one.

 

[ActualViking]

I think the use of the word "scam is click bait and nothing more. Either that or this site needs to using the word a lot more, like for example with laptops sporting GPU's that share the name of actually GPU cards used in desktop machines.

Somehow AMD can always count on being called the worst in this place, just as Nvidia can expect to get by with tine scratches at the most.

The 9050 4 GB is what it is, cheap for its time and limited by its memory. Something that can be said of a lot of Nvidia offerings, without them getting the "Scam" label. The 9050 4 GB goes in machines that are cheap, they come with all sorts of bottle necks and that is okay for the cheap machines that they are.

 

[AnilD]

I think we're confusing “this particular 9050 is badly named and overpriced” with “a 4GB GPU shouldn't exist.”

There absolutely should be a bottom tier discrete GPU. Not everybody is playing the latest AAA game at Ultra. Plenty of people need an inexpensive card for older games, esports, WoW, office PCs, or simply to have dedicated graphics and VRAM instead of leaning on an APU and eating into system memory.
... The problem isn't that the RX 9050 4GB exists. The problem is AMD cut the memory bus in half, crippled the bandwidth, and then gave a GPU that's roughly 30-40% slower the exact same name as the 8GB card.

Call it an RX 9040, price it like an RX 9040, and suddenly there's nothing scandalous about it.

Agreed 100%. And I think that's what the review is trying to convey all along, with some numbers to back it all up.

 

[PierreJG]

If this were not an OEM it may have made sense as what I am busy building. I have a Ryzen 5 2400g that I am building into a retro/emulation PC. If this were available for a reasonable price, it would have made a little bit of sense and also if it were named correctly. We have seen this from every maker so far. 1 thing that still catch me is why there are still 64-bit GPUs being made in 2026...3 scenarios where this will make sense: 1 HTPC, 2. Retro gaming PC, and 3. Doorstopper.

Btw. I built my Ryzen 5 5500 RX6600XT and 16GB 3600mhz memory for just over 500 usd and I live in a place where parts are way overpriced.