For the unaware, AMD just released its latest RDNA 4 GPU, the Radeon RX 9050. You'd be forgiven if the news had eluded you because, aside from an announcement on AMD's website, there wasn't much fanfare around this one. There were no launch reviews or anything like that, which already tells you this product is probably going to be bad.
In fact, we already know the RX 9050 is bad without even having one on hand to review, though we'll be getting one soon. For now, we're revisiting the subject of VRAM because it's particularly relevant to AMD's new RX 9050 series.
The retail version of the RX 9050 comes with 8GB of VRAM. That's not a lot, but arguably enough for an entry-level product. In a more normal market, we'd almost certainly demand at least 12GB at an MSRP of $280, but given the current state of the market, we'd probably give AMD a pass at 8GB.
But 8GB is the good option here, because there's also a 4GB version of the RX 9050. Yes, you read that correctly: AMD is releasing a discrete RDNA 4 GPU in 2026 with just 4GB of VRAM. Insane.
But somehow, it gets worse. AMD has decided to commit almost every possible sin with this release. Not only do the 4GB and 8GB versions of the RX 9050 share the exact same name, but the 4GB model hasn't just had its memory capacity slashed. Its memory bandwidth has been cut as well. Adding insult to injury, AMD is only selling the 8GB model through retail channels, while the dodgy 4GB version is destined for pre-built systems, where it's far more likely to end up in the hands of unsuspecting buyers.
If you want to research how the RX 9050 performs, you'll naturally turn to the internet for benchmarks, and in almost every instance you'll be looking at results for the much faster 8GB model. Very dodgy stuff from AMD, and the 4GB model will likely be even worse than you'd expect.
The old and equally horrible Radeon RX 6500 XT also launched with just 4GB of VRAM. AMD eventually released a much better, though still bad, 8GB clamshell version. Both models featured a 64-bit memory bus, providing 144 GB/s of bandwidth.
With the RX 9050, things are quite different. It uses the Navi 44 die, the same silicon found in the RX 9060 and 9060 XT. This design features a 128-bit memory bus, which AMD uses to achieve an 8GB capacity on the 9060 series, as well as on the 8GB RX 9050. To halve the memory capacity, AMD has therefore had to remove half of the memory chips, which also halves the memory bus width and, consequently, the memory bandwidth. Navi 44 doesn't require clamshell memory to achieve an 8GB capacity, so removing two of the four 2GB memory chips cuts the available bandwidth in half.
In short, whereas the 8GB RX 9050 offers 288 GB/s of memory bandwidth, the 4GB model has been reduced to just 144 GB/s, the same bandwidth as the RX 6500 XT models. This is going to significantly reduce performance relative to the 8GB RX 9050.
On top of that, many modern games are likely to struggle with just 4GB of VRAM, and that's what we want to explore here using the 4GB and 8GB versions of the RX 6500 XT.
Bottom line, the Radeon RX 9050 is probably going to suck. It has just 1,024 cores, half as many as the RX 9060 XT, which makes the $280 MSRP difficult to justify when you can buy an 8GB RX 9060 XT for $400. That's a little over 40% more money, but the 9060 XT should be more than twice as fast, thanks not only to having twice as many cores but also higher clock speeds.
We'll be buying and reviewing the RX 9050 models soon. For now, though, the question is simple: how well do modern games actually run on a graphics card with just 4GB of VRAM?
Test System Specs
| CPU | AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D |
| Motherboard | MSI MPG X870E Carbon WiFi [BIOS 7E49v1A4] Resizable BAR Enabled |
| Memory | G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB DDR5-6000 CL30 [CL30-38-38-96] |
| Graphics Card | Radeon RX 6500 XT 4GB & 8GB |
| ATX Case | MSI Prospect 700R |
| Power Supply | Kolink Regulator Gold ATX 3.0 1200W |
| Storage | TeamGroup T-Force Cardea A440 M.2 PCIe Gen4 NVMe SSD 4TB |
| Operating System | Windows 11 25H2 |
| Display Driver | AMD Radeon Adrenalin 26.7.1 WHQL |
Benchmarks
Crimson Desert
We'll start with Crimson Desert, and interestingly, there doesn't appear to be any meaningful performance difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions of the 6500 XT, at least when using the Low and Minimum presets at 1080p.
Given how slow the 6500 XT is, it's not really viable to use anything above Minimum, which already looks awful. We can only imagine how bad it would look with FSR enabled. We could have turned it on to find out, but some things can't be unseen, so we opted not to.
Call of Duty Black Ops 7
Given that Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 is a competitive shooter, playing with lower-quality settings isn't really an issue, and many gamers with higher-end hardware will choose to play this way anyway.
Doing so requires very little VRAM, so once again we see next to no difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions of the 6500 XT.
Counter-Strike 2
Counter-Strike 2 is highly potato-compatible, so naturally it manages to run very well even on the 6500 XT.
We're also looking at yet another example where the 4GB and 8GB versions of the 6500 XT deliver essentially the same level of performance.
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege X
It's the same story with Rainbow Six Siege X at 1080p using both the Low and even the High presets.
With Low, the 6500 XT averaged 120 fps with 1% lows of 101 fps, so performance was very playable, and the experience was essentially identical with either the 4GB or 8GB version of the 6500 XT.
Cities: Skylines II
Cities: Skylines II ran really poorly on the 6500 XT, averaging just 16 fps with the Low preset, though we could boost that to an almost playable 32 fps using Very Low.
The takeaway here, other than the horrendously poor performance, is that the 4GB and 8GB versions once again delivered the same results.
Fortnite
Fortnite provides us with yet another example where the 4GB and 8GB versions of the 6500 XT deliver similar performance, particularly when using Performance Mode.
Provided you have a decent CPU, achieving high-refresh-rate performance in Fortnite with Performance Mode isn't much of a challenge, even for a GPU this weak.
Case Closed: 4GB is Plenty?
So there you have it. In 2026, for low-end, entry-level, budget gaming, you clearly don't need more than 4GB of VRAM. AMD is right on the money with its upcoming OEM-only RX 9050 4GB, which shares the exact same name as the 8GB retail version, has half the memory bandwidth, and definitely isn't a deeply questionable way to sell a slower product to less-informed buyers.
Good job, AMD...?
Of course, there's one slight problem with that conclusion: we've deliberately started with games that either scale extremely well to low-end hardware or simply don't use much VRAM at minimum settings.
Those are useful examples because they show that 4GB isn't automatically a disaster in every game, but stopping here would give a wildly incomplete picture.
It turns out that testing only lightweight competitive titles and games running at their absolute lowest settings might be a little misleading. So, unfortunately for the RX 9050 4GB, we'll keep testing.
007 First Light
Well, this is a bit horrific. We're already at 1080p, and apparently that's still not low enough for the 6500 XT 4GB. We're not sure how far we'd have to drop the resolution before it became viable, but we suspect the required setting might not actually be supported.
Using the lowest possible quality settings at native 1080p, the 8GB model was 191% faster. Then, with FSR Balanced enabled, the game didn't just look shockingly bad, but the 8GB model was still 148% faster.
So it's fair to say you can't realistically play 007 First Light with a 4GB graphics card, or at the very least, you really shouldn't.
Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight
Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight also ran incredibly poorly on the 4GB model, especially compared with the 8GB version.
Using the Medium preset at 1080p, the 8GB model was 90% faster, jumping from 59 fps to 112 fps. Even with the Low preset, which is the lowest available in the game, the 8GB model was still 52% faster.
You could technically play the game on the 4GB card using Low, but the visual quality at that setting is awful.
Space Marine 2
The 8GB version was 18% faster using the Medium preset in Space Marine 2 and, interestingly, 26% faster with Low.
Those are smaller margins than what we saw in Lego Batman and 007 First Light, but they're still significant, particularly when performance is already well below 60 fps.
Resident Evil Requiem
Performance in Resident Evil Requiem was also very poor because, well, it's a 6500 XT. Using the Low preset, the 8GB model was 29% faster, but that margin increased to a massive 41% with the Lowest preset.
It appears that GPU compute performance becomes the greater bottleneck with the Low preset, whereas VRAM is the primary limitation for the 4GB version when using the lowest quality settings.
Marvel Rivals
You might think Marvel Rivals falls into the same category as a game like Counter-Strike 2 or Fortnite, but it's actually quite demanding on low-end hardware, even with the Low preset.
Here, the 6500 XT fell short of 60 fps, and the 8GB model was 25% faster than the 4GB version. That margin blew out to 81% with the Medium preset, or 146% when comparing 1% lows.
Battlefield 6
Battlefield 6 also requires at least 8GB of VRAM, even when using the lowest settings. Here, the 8GB version was 83% faster with the Medium preset and 91% faster with Low, or 141% faster when comparing 1% lows.
More importantly, the 4GB model was limited to around 30 fps, making the performance difference far more meaningful than the percentages alone suggest.
Forza Horizon 6
You can achieve decent frame rates with the 6500 XT in Forza Horizon 6, though it's significantly easier to do so with the 8GB card.
Using the Medium preset, the 8GB model was 68% faster, and it remained 43% faster with the Very Low preset, which is the lowest available in the game.
Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced
The new Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced was a real struggle on the 6500 XT and basically unplayable on the 4GB version.
Testing with the Low preset saw the 8GB model deliver 54% greater performance, while with the lowest possible quality preset, Ultra Low, it was still 39% faster.
The Last of Us Part II Remastered
Next up, we have The Last of Us Part II Remastered, and this is another example of why 4GB GPUs are now essentially useless for modern gaming.
The 8GB 6500 XT delivered 56% greater performance using the Medium preset and was still 42% faster with Very Low.
F1 25
The F1 25 results were particularly surprising. Using the built-in benchmark, we saw a massive performance difference between the 4GB and 8GB models.
With the Medium preset, the 8GB card averaged 100 fps, delivering 82% greater performance than the 4GB model. But it was with the Ultra Low preset that the 4GB version really fell apart.
At this point, the VRAM bottleneck becomes the primary performance limitation, allowing the 8GB card to stretch its legs and hit 155 fps, an extraordinary 142% improvement.
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty is actually playable on the 6500 XT, provided we're talking about the 8GB model.
Using the Low preset, it averaged 62 fps, which isn't too bad and made it 44% faster than the 4GB version. The 4GB model averaged just 43 fps, with 1% lows of only 28 fps. Moving to the Medium preset, the 8GB model was still 39% faster on average.
Pragmata
Pragmata is really only enjoyable on a 6500 XT when using the Minimum quality preset. Here, we didn't see much difference between the 4GB and 8GB versions in average frame rates, though 1% lows were 16% stronger on the 8GB model. This suggests the 4GB version could run into more significant issues during longer gameplay sessions.
The problem is that Pragmata looks terrible using the Minimum settings. Medium looks considerably better, and those settings are at least worth considering with the 8GB model, which was 56% faster than the 4GB version.
18-Game Average
Across the 18 games tested, using the geomean, the 8GB 6500 XT was on average 40% faster with our higher-quality settings, which typically means the Medium preset. Looking at the lowest-quality settings, the 8GB model was still 32% faster on average. Both are very significant gains, though these figures inevitably hide some of the more extreme individual results.
For this type of testing, an average graph can actually be a little misleading. The 4GB 6500 XT wasn't consistently delivering anything close to 60 fps, even when using the lowest available settings, and the overall figure is somewhat flattered by strong results in games such as Fortnite, which are specifically designed to scale down to extremely modest hardware, even mid-tier phones if needed.
So while a 32% average advantage sounds substantial, it doesn't fully convey just how catastrophic the 4GB model's performance can become once a game actually exceeds its available VRAM.
8GB vs. 4GB on a Per-Game Basis
Low Settings
Here is a breakdown of the performance margins on a per-game basis. As you can see, the 4GB 6500 XT was particularly broken in 007 First Light, Battlefield 6, and F1 25, all of which were tested at 1080p using the lowest possible quality preset.
Games that can still run reasonably well on a 4GB GPU under these conditions include Black Ops 7, Counter-Strike 2, Fortnite, and Rainbow Six Siege. Cities: Skylines II also showed little difference between the 4GB and 8GB models, though the 6500 XT simply isn't powerful enough to deliver a good experience in that game regardless of VRAM capacity.
Then we have titles such as Crimson Desert and Pragmata, where the 4GB card technically works, but performance is poor and the visual compromises required to get there are even worse. In other words, matching the 8GB model doesn't necessarily mean the experience is acceptable.
Medium Settings
With our higher-quality settings, which typically means a Medium preset, the visuals are generally much more acceptable. But now there are considerably fewer examples where you can get away with just 4GB of VRAM.
Once again, lighter competitive titles such as Counter-Strike 2, Rainbow Six Siege, and Fortnite are largely fine. Outside of games specifically designed to scale well on low-end hardware, however, the limitations of a 4GB framebuffer become much harder to avoid.
The 4GB Problem is Only Getting Worse
The Radeon RX 6500 XT was trash when AMD released it in early 2022, and as we've just seen, time has done it no favors. No surprises there. What it has given us, however, is a useful look at how 4GB and 8GB versions of the same weak, underpowered GPU compare in modern games. As you'd expect, the 4GB model doesn't fare well.
We saw examples where the 8GB model was nearly three times faster, along with plenty of cases where performance roughly doubled. So it's clear that even a GPU as weak as the 6500 XT really does require at least 8GB of VRAM for modern gaming.
It was also interesting to see examples where the performance gap between the 4GB and 8GB models actually increased as we lowered the quality settings. This happens because reducing image quality lowers the GPU workload without necessarily bringing memory usage below 4GB. The 8GB model is then able to stretch its legs, while the 4GB card remains gimped by insufficient memory.
For anyone shopping for an older second-hand graphics card to play basic games, or titles such as Counter-Strike 2 and Fortnite with dialed-down quality settings, a 4GB GPU can still get the job done. But if you have the option, buy something with more memory. 4GB graphics cards really are on their last legs.
Which brings us back to AMD's "brand-new" Radeon RX 9050 and its OEM-only 4GB configuration, which will likely sell for only around $20 less than the 8GB model.
And, to be clear, the 8GB version already looks like a pretty horrible product at its current pricing. The problem with the 4GB RX 9050, or perhaps more accurately one of its many problems, isn't simply that it has just 4GB of VRAM. AMD has achieved that capacity by removing half of the memory chips, reducing the memory bus from 128-bit to just 64-bit and cutting memory bandwidth in half to 144 GB/s.
That detail matters. We just compared 4GB and 8GB versions of the RX 6500 XT that both use the same 64-bit memory bus and therefore offer the same 144 GB/s of bandwidth. That's already bad for performance, really bad, but at least both cards are equally compromised in that respect.
The RX 9050 situation is different. The 8GB model has 288 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the 4GB version gets just 144 GB/s. As a result, the 8GB RX 9050 will almost certainly be considerably faster than the 4GB model even in games that don't require more than 4GB of VRAM.
If we had to guess, the 4GB RX 9050 could end up delivering performance surprisingly close to the old 4GB RX 6500 XT in some workloads. Yes, the RX 9050 uses RDNA 4 rather than the older RDNA 2 architecture, so its cores are more capable, but the two GPUs have the same core count, operate at broadly similar frequencies, and have the same 144 GB/s of memory bandwidth feeding them. The newer architecture should help, but in many situations the RX 9050 4GB is still likely to run headfirst into its memory subsystem.
Of course, we need to actually test the 4GB and 8GB RX 9050 models before we can say exactly how bad the situation is. We plan on getting both, although tracking down the OEM-only 4GB version might take a bit more effort. But we'll get one, we'll test it, and based on everything we've seen here, there's a pretty good chance it's going to be terrible.
Then again, given the state of the GPU market right now, maybe that's not such a bad thing for us. Graphics cards are still expensive, most of the current generation is firmly established, and we're not expecting any huge wave of dramatically faster or better-value GPUs in the immediate future. So if the industry insists on giving us questionable products like a brand-new 4GB graphics card in 2026, at least we'll have some fun testing them. The RX 9050 4GB should give us plenty to work with.