AMD's Radeon RX 9050 8GB promises current-generation graphics for budget gamers, but poor performance and even worse value make this GPU nearly impossible to justify.
AMD Radeon RX 9050 8GB Review: Budget GPU, Zero Budget Value
AMD Radeon RX 9050 8GB Review: Budget GPU, Zero Budget Value
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Megalomaniac
Posts: 1,326 +1,453
If you're trying to build right now you've basically been given a choice:
Finance your video card or accept the bare minimum.
Makes no sense.
I'm just glad the Nvidia vs. AMD argument is long over.
Finance your video card or accept the bare minimum.
Makes no sense.
I'm just glad the Nvidia vs. AMD argument is long over.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 2,330 +4,725
The fact that this card and the RTX 5050 are basically on par with a 3060 12GB just goes to show how shitty both AMD and Nvidia have done the bottom tier GPUs over the past two generations.
yRaz
Posts: 9,852 +17,503
And comparing it directly to the 9060xt is silly because that's going for almost $600 and of you want to go the APU route, of which the 9050 is faster, you basically have to buy 32GB of ram since it's shared.
Does anyone remember the mx 5200? Crap cars for gaming but it filled a niche
Be interesting if you got a ryzen ai 388 and compared the 9050 to the 8060s
Does anyone remember the mx 5200? Crap cars for gaming but it filled a niche
Be interesting if you got a ryzen ai 388 and compared the 9050 to the 8060s
Inthenstus
Posts: 354 +477
I usually enjoy your reviews, but testing the lowest of low video cards at Ultra settings is not really the cards intended use.. 1080p medium in current gen games is what this is for.. the dial from medium to ultra is usually minimal in most games anyways..
LordVile95
Posts: 934 +627
What’s the point of this? You seek to not understand what this card is for. Or maybe you do whixh is why you didn’t test the 6500XT. It’s the bottom end SKU for esports and someone who just wants a new dedicated GPU out.
demonicmaniac
Posts: 44 +69
The biggest problem is that the 7600 8gb over here starts at 250 euros new - so expecting the msrp for this one to be at least 300 euros, considerably more expensive than the 7600 which is considerably faster than this. Yes, the 7600 draws more power but it still gets fsr4 now so it's always the better option. The only thing the 9050 has over it is RT performance which is pointless given it's too weak for any RT in any game just like the 5050. At price parity with the 7600 it might have been weird but ok but as it is if it just replaces the 7600 once they're sold out at 280 to 300 it's just a worse product for the same price which is just sad.
I could see a 4gb given the memory situation 9050 for 200 bucks for esports managing enough frames on low/medium for esports titles but that's still a super hard sell vs the 5050 then. Heck if they could make a half 9060 with the 4gb for 150 that could be something for esports still faster than igp on desktop by a bit but at least priced accordingly.
I could see a 4gb given the memory situation 9050 for 200 bucks for esports managing enough frames on low/medium for esports titles but that's still a super hard sell vs the 5050 then. Heck if they could make a half 9060 with the 4gb for 150 that could be something for esports still faster than igp on desktop by a bit but at least priced accordingly.
I too would have liked to see all the games set to high quality/high quality equivalent across the board for consistency's sake and reflect the most likely use case for this card... the 8GB 9050 is still a "current gen" card so I would assume (and hope) it could handle medium quality without issue in any game, but knowing it is at the bottom* of the product segment I would not expect it to perform at ultra or higher settings.
*I said bottom, but AMD apparently found a shovel and dug a little deeper with the announcement of that 4GB model lmao
LordVile95
Posts: 934 +627
This is a replacement for the 6500XT which never got a 7000 series card. Also in the US the cheapest 7600 is about 330 which is $50 more than the 9050 and isn’t something you can just drop into an office PC. I’d consider a 9050 4GB for my media PC if the 1060 3GB that’s currently in it ever conks out.
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,986 +4,094
9060 XT is $400, Gigabyte Gaming at Best Buy. Other models at $420, but better buy soon as there aren't many.
Based on that price this 9050 should be $220-230. As prices for other models inevitably go up in the next few months, I'll bet this 9050 settles to a competitive price and we may even be effed enough where that's: $280.
Dammit
yRaz
Posts: 9,852 +17,503
I'm seeing 9060xt's all over the place going from 450 to 600 and it seems like the 8gb version are the cheaper ones.
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,986 +4,094
Since this 9050 is an 8GB only card, it seems reasonable to compare to the 8GB 9060 XT. However anyone with sense will save more for the 16GB version but: will prices rise faster than you can save?
yRaz
Posts: 9,852 +17,503
Well the price differences at this level are too far to just save more in this economy. Pre 40 series, the difference between different cards in the stack was usually $20-50. When we're talking about differences of $150-200, that's not "just save more" money for the target market of these cards. And there was only one benchmark that showed the 8gb limitation which was at 1440p at ultra settings so I feel the 8GB barrier is much overblown. I've been building PCs since the 90s and this elitist additude, while always there, seems to be taken extremely out of proportion the last few years.
As one final point, I find it completely unacceptable that modern titles on low look worse than AAA titles on high that existed 15 years ago. You can play Crysis on a laptop with integrated graphics now and It looks better than modern games on low, it's stupid. If people are willing to skip the AAA titles and me wart of UE5 games, old hardware actually still provides a great gaming experience. I have a 3070ti and a 6700xt, they aren't going anywhere. The industry has been pushing Ray Tracing, 4k and feame rates above 120/144. None of these things really provide that much better if an experience for what they cost. We're 4 generations into raytracing and even midrange cards can't do it without upscalling.
So many of these things are being pushing to increase hardware sales or even keep them level, but there aren't compelling products at the price points people are willing or able to spend. We have a bell curve of the price points people are willing to spend money at and that isn't going to change just because they increase the price of hardware across the board, just ask the auto industry how insisting consumers pay more is working out of them. The tech industry has AI to prop them up for now, but even that is going to start coming to an end soon.
LordVile95
Posts: 934 +627
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,986 +4,094
You can buy the 8GB 9060 XT. You can't buy the 4GB 9050 without getting it in a predatory prebuilt. Different animals. Also there's no data on the 4GB model yet I think.
You can buy the 8GB 9050 in some markets and the 8GB 9060 XT everywhere. These are more comparable.
LordVile95
Posts: 934 +627
Not really you’re still consoling the more expensive model vs the cheaper one
Not really you should be consorting it to the 9060 non XT
MiqWalsh
Posts: 105 +127
To my way of thinking, the whole scenario has got sweet F.A to do with the GPU manufacturers (component constraints notwithstanding). The bigger issue is why on earth these game studios are writing such computationally-intensive code in the first place.....or else why would such hyper-powerful hardware even be needed?
Damn, but I've never been so glad to be a 'retro-gamer'. The stuff that gets MY pulse racing comes from 20-25+ years ago..... Modern AAA+ titles are so yawn-inducing, it's a wonder as many people bother with 'em as they do.
Waiting for attacks from ALL sides here...!!
Miq.
Damn, but I've never been so glad to be a 'retro-gamer'. The stuff that gets MY pulse racing comes from 20-25+ years ago..... Modern AAA+ titles are so yawn-inducing, it's a wonder as many people bother with 'em as they do.
Waiting for attacks from ALL sides here...!!
Miq.
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,986 +4,094
There is no "should" as you can compare anything you want. Sure you can include the 9050 4GB if you want but I'm interested in things you can actually buy. Can't buy the 9050 4GB so it's irrelevant except for curiosity's sake.
What's more interesting is comparing the models available to buy especially at this "entry level" price point. 9060 XT 8GB, 9060, 9050 8GB. I don't see much about the 9060 online so a lack of data leaves the 9060 XT 8GB and 9050 8GB as the interesting GPUs to compare. Alongside the 5050 and 5060 of course.
Steve, I think the review proves the RX 9050 is badly priced at $280. I'm just not convinced it proves the card itself is the technological war crime the conclusion makes it sound like.
For starters, this is a 92watt, bottom of the stack GPU. Testing it at Ultra settings is useful for comparison, but it's a strange way to define the experience of the buyer it's actually aimed at. Nobody buying a 9050 is sitting there agonizing over whether Cyberpunk's volumetric fog should be Ultra or Psycho. They're going to run 1080p medium/high, esports titles, older games, or drop it into a modest PC and get on with their lives.
And this is where “just buy the faster card” becomes a little too easy.
The RX 9060 XT 8GB is around $419 right now. That's roughly $140 more than the 9050, or about a 50% increase in purchase price. Yes, it has better cost per frame. Wonderful. A Mercedes may have better depreciation than a Kia too, but that doesn't magically put another $140 in the buyer's pocket.
Then there's Intel.
The Arc B570 is around $259 and the B580 around $349. Those are exactly the cards that make the 9050's $280 price hard to defend. The B570 undercuts it, while the B580 costs about $70 more and offers considerably more performance. That is a much more meaningful criticism of the 9050 than simply pointing at a $419 9060 XT and announcing that budget buyers should save harder.
So yes, AMD has a pricing problem here.
But “bad value at $280” and “horrible GPU that need not exist” are two rather different conclusions.
The card averaged playable 1080p performance, has 8GB of VRAM, consumes only about 92 watts, runs cool and quiet, and fills the exact sort of niche previously occupied by cards like the RX 6500 XT. None of that makes $280 a good price. It does, however, mean the silicon itself isn't the problem.
At $200-$220, we'd probably be discussing this as a perfectly reasonable low power 1080p med/high settings card.
At $280, we're sharpening pitchforks.
Apparently those extra sixty dollars don't merely alter the value proposition; they transform the GPU into an affront to civilization.
And perhaps the larger story is being missed.
When the 9050 is $280, the B570 is ~$259, the B580 is ~$349, the RTX 5050 is hovering around the same neighborhood, and stepping up to a 9060 XT 8GB costs ~$419, maybe the problem isn't that AMD somehow forgot how to manufacture a low end GPU.
Maybe the entire entry level GPU market has become absurd.
Steve's benchmarks actually demonstrate that rather well.
The editorial flamethrower afterward is optional.
For starters, this is a 92watt, bottom of the stack GPU. Testing it at Ultra settings is useful for comparison, but it's a strange way to define the experience of the buyer it's actually aimed at. Nobody buying a 9050 is sitting there agonizing over whether Cyberpunk's volumetric fog should be Ultra or Psycho. They're going to run 1080p medium/high, esports titles, older games, or drop it into a modest PC and get on with their lives.
And this is where “just buy the faster card” becomes a little too easy.
The RX 9060 XT 8GB is around $419 right now. That's roughly $140 more than the 9050, or about a 50% increase in purchase price. Yes, it has better cost per frame. Wonderful. A Mercedes may have better depreciation than a Kia too, but that doesn't magically put another $140 in the buyer's pocket.
Then there's Intel.
The Arc B570 is around $259 and the B580 around $349. Those are exactly the cards that make the 9050's $280 price hard to defend. The B570 undercuts it, while the B580 costs about $70 more and offers considerably more performance. That is a much more meaningful criticism of the 9050 than simply pointing at a $419 9060 XT and announcing that budget buyers should save harder.
So yes, AMD has a pricing problem here.
But “bad value at $280” and “horrible GPU that need not exist” are two rather different conclusions.
The card averaged playable 1080p performance, has 8GB of VRAM, consumes only about 92 watts, runs cool and quiet, and fills the exact sort of niche previously occupied by cards like the RX 6500 XT. None of that makes $280 a good price. It does, however, mean the silicon itself isn't the problem.
At $200-$220, we'd probably be discussing this as a perfectly reasonable low power 1080p med/high settings card.
At $280, we're sharpening pitchforks.
Apparently those extra sixty dollars don't merely alter the value proposition; they transform the GPU into an affront to civilization.
And perhaps the larger story is being missed.
When the 9050 is $280, the B570 is ~$259, the B580 is ~$349, the RTX 5050 is hovering around the same neighborhood, and stepping up to a 9060 XT 8GB costs ~$419, maybe the problem isn't that AMD somehow forgot how to manufacture a low end GPU.
Maybe the entire entry level GPU market has become absurd.
Steve's benchmarks actually demonstrate that rather well.
The editorial flamethrower afterward is optional.
LordVile95
Posts: 934 +627
But you’re comparing GPUs that are significantly more expensive by a factor of nearly 1.5x at a minimum. Thats like valeting a 9060XT to a 5070Ti it’s just not the same class of card.
Its not competing with the 5050 it’s competing with the 3050 which is the bottom of Nvidia’s stack.
Why would you ever run a budget card at ultra settings? I'd be far more interested in low/medium and also 1280x720.
Last edited:
Lew Zealand
Posts: 2,986 +4,094
The 3050 8GB is available for $260 and the 5050 is available for $300, both equal comparisons to the $280 9050. And the 9050 and 3050/5050 were poor value options when compared to their betters, the 9060 XT and 5060. The point is to isolate the problems in pricing and those are that the 5050 and 9050 were poorly priced for their performance compared to the next step up in the stack. However now that the lowest priced 9060 XT and 5060 models went out of stock just within the past few days leaving the rest at $400+, that makes the 9050's price (and the 5050's) not so ridiculous any more.
In other words: the rest of the market's prices caught up to how poor value the 9050 and 5050 are. So: an eventual win for AMD's pricing?
demonicmaniac
Posts: 44 +69
The problem with this is that the 7600 launched at a 269$ msrp - lower than this. And their newegg listing shows 300$ which is pretty much the 280$ msrp of this 9050 xt. If you want to accept that each class of gpu gets a 100$ price bump every new generation then the next lowest entry gpus will be 400 or 500 - yay. In the market it competes with the 7600 which is still available. And as it is not slot powered it also doesn't slot into any office pc without pcie power and it's also neither single slot nor low profile. Granted, on a 280w or so psu office desktop 92w is easier to make work than 150w spare but still. If this or the 4gb were slot powered and single slot I'd see an argument there - price still too high but at least an argument to be made.
WhiteLeaff
Posts: 1,059 +2,046
The video is misleading regarding power consumption, it treats the system's power consumption as if it were solely from the GPU.
This product would only be suitable for mini-ITX systems if it were a 75W card.
This product would only be suitable for mini-ITX systems if it were a 75W card.
demonicmaniac
Posts: 44 +69
The 8060s should be faster than this when run not thermally constrained. 8060s is about a 7600, teensy bit slower but not as much as this card, pretty much a head to head with the 8060s slightly ahead. Though 388+ systems hardly exist yet and even then you won't find them with 32gb soldered for below a 1000, definitely no ai max+ is any comparison, heh. A more interesting comparison point will be if nova lake comes with a big Xe3 version for a new desktop apu hopefully without soldered ram only and more affordable.
Similar threads
