We promised we would get one, and while it's not the 4GB model, which will require a little more time, we do have AMD's brand-new Radeon RX 9050 8GB. And boy, is this thing super-duper stinky. It's really, really slow and represents very poor value, but you'll want to see just how bad it is. This card is special, we promise.
We can't even reveal which Radeon RX 9050 8GB model we have, so we're unable to show it. AMD wouldn't provide us with a review sample, and none of its partners were permitted to send us one, meaning we had to rely on some of our side-channel contacts. Oddly, while the RX 9050 is available at retail in Latin America, Asia-Pacific, and Japan, Australia and Korea have been excluded.
This is a different Radeon graphics card from a previous TechSpot review, only shown for illustrative purposes.
We wouldn't be shocked if AMD excluded Australia just to dodge us, but we could almost understand it given how brutally we mugged the Radeon RX 6500 XT. We're mostly joking, of course. We don't seriously believe AMD excluded an entire continent just to prevent us from reviewing the RX 9050, but if it did, the joke is on them. So, what exactly is the RX 9050, and why are you getting the sense that we might not like it?
There are three key issues with the RX 9050. First, performance is really bad. That problem is compounded by the price: at $280, it's far too expensive for the performance on offer. Worst of all, it shares its exact product name with a broken 4GB version that packs not only half the VRAM, but also half the memory bandwidth. It's a real doozy.
This is a different Radeon graphics card from a previous TechSpot review, only shown for illustrative purposes.
In short, the Radeon RX 9050 is a heavily cut-down 9060 XT. Apparently, AMD has quite a few defective RX 9060 XT dies that couldn't even be repurposed for the RX 9060. Whereas the RX 9060 XT requires 2,048 functioning cores and the vanilla RX 9060 uses 1,792, the RX 9050 features just 1,024. Despite using the same silicon as the RX 9060 XT, the RX 9050 has only half as many active cores.
| Radeon 9050 4GB | Radeon 9050 8GB | Radeon 9060 | Radeon 9060 XT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price (MSRP) | OEM | $280 | OEM | $300 |
| Release Date | July 28, 2026 | Aug 5, 2025 | Jun 5, 2025 | |
| Process | TSMC N4P | |||
| Transistors | 29.7 billion | |||
| Die Size (mm2) | 199 mm2 | |||
| Core Config | 1024 / 64 / 64 | 1792 / 112 / 64 | 2048 / 128 / 64 | |
| GPU Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2990 MHz | 3130 MHz | |
| Memory Capacity | 4 GB | 8 GB | ||
| Memory Speed | 18 Gbps | 20 Gbps | ||
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | |||
| Bus Type / Bandwidth | 64-bit : 144 GB/s | 128-bit : 288 GB/s | 128-bit : 288 GB/s | 128-bit : 320 GB/s |
| Total Board Power | 92W | 132W | 150W | |
According to AMD's reference spec, the RX 9050 cores also clock as high as just 2.6 GHz, whereas the RX 9060 XT can reach 3.1 GHz. Our model operated between 2.7 and 2.8 GHz, which is still lower than the RX 9060 XT.
Given all of that, we'd expect the RX 9050 to be around 50% slower than the RX 9060 XT. That could leave it struggling to compete with Nvidia's GeForce RTX 5050. It's hard to imagine that being the case, but based on the specifications, it certainly appears possible. With that, let's examine operating behavior before moving on to the benchmarks.
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 | GeForce RTX 3050 GeForce RTX 3060 GeForce RTX 3060 Ti GeForce RTX 3070 GeForce RTX 4060 GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16G GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8G GeForce RTX 4070 |
GeForce RTX 5050 GeForce RTX 5060 GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16G GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8G Intel Arc A770 16G Intel Arc B580 Radeon RX 6600 Radeon RX 6650 XT |
Radeon RX 6700 XT Radeon RX 7600 Radeon RX 7600 XT Radeon RX 7700 XT Radeon RX 7800 XT Radeon RX 9050 8G Radeon RX 9060 XT 16G Radeon RX 9060 XT 8G |
| 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 / GeForce Game Ready Driver 610.88 | ||
Clock Behavior
After 30 minutes under load in an ATX case with its panels installed and an ambient room temperature of 21°C, our RX 9050 model, which we can't identify, recorded a peak GPU hotspot temperature of just 59°C.
The hotspot briefly reached 66°C before the fans activated, but once they were spinning at a whisper-quiet 960 RPM, the peak temperature settled at 59°C.
As advertised, the card drew around 90W, with a peak of 92W, while the core clock averaged 2,770 MHz. Finally, the memory peaked at just 56°C, making this a very cool and quiet graphics card overall.
Benchmarks
Clair Obscur: Expedition 33
First up is Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 at 1080p using the Epic preset, where the RX 9050 averaged just 36 fps. That made it 38% faster than the aging RTX 3050 and 20% faster than the RX 6600. The RX 7600 edged ahead with 37 fps, while the RTX 5050 was 8% faster at 39 fps.
Stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a substantial 50% performance increase, raising the average frame rate to a much smoother 54 fps.
At 1440p, the RX 9050 8GB managed an average of just 22 fps, rendering the game unplayable. Interestingly, it leapfrogged several GPUs that typically outperform it, beating both the RX 6600 and RX 7600 while easily defeating the RTX 3050. It even left Nvidia's RTX 5050 behind, outperforming its 16 fps average by 38%.
Still, unplayable is unplayable, and you'll need a much faster GPU for acceptable performance. The RX 9060 XT 8GB averaged 36 fps, representing a massive 64% performance increase over the RX 9050.
Marvel Rivals
At 1080p using the Ultra preset, the RX 9050 delivered 41 fps on average, falling well short of a smooth 60 fps experience. It outpaced the older RTX 3050 by 28% and comfortably beat the RX 6600 by 41%. Interestingly, it also managed to edge ahead of the older RX 7600, which averaged 40 fps.
However, Nvidia's RTX 5050 held a noticeable 22% lead with 50 fps. For a much smoother experience, the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered 66 fps on average, representing a massive 61% performance increase over the RX 9050.
Increasing the resolution to 1440p dropped the RX 9050 to a sluggish 27 fps, making upscaling mandatory. It still held a 23% lead over the RTX 3050 and a 42% advantage over the RX 6600, while matching the RX 7600 frame for frame.
Nvidia's RTX 5050 remained faster, outpacing the RX 9050 by 11% with a 30 fps average. Meanwhile, the RX 9060 XT 8GB provided a huge 70% performance increase, lifting the average to a somewhat playable 46 fps.
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor
In Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, the RX 9050 delivered 57 fps on average, providing decent entry-level performance. It comfortably outperformed the RTX 3050 by 27% and narrowly edged ahead of the RX 6600.
However, the RTX 5050 and RX 7600 remained firmly ahead at 70 fps and 72 fps, respectively, giving them a 23% to 26% advantage. Moving up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a huge 74% performance increase, reaching an impressive 99 fps.
Increasing the resolution to 1440p saw the RX 9050 average just 35 fps. That placed it 30% ahead of the bottom-tier RTX 3050 and 6% ahead of the RX 6600. However, it couldn't keep pace with similarly priced alternatives, trailing the RTX 5050 by 15% and the RX 7600 by 19%. Upgrading to the RX 9060 XT 8GB resulted in an 80% performance increase, lifting the average to a much more enjoyable 63 fps.
A Plague Tale: Requiem
In A Plague Tale: Requiem at 1080p using the Ultra preset, the RX 9050 averaged 53 fps. It managed to flip the script on the older RX 6600, beating it by a slim 6% margin, while easily crushing the RTX 3050's 38 fps result.
However, it fell behind the modern entry-level competition. The RTX 5050 was 15% faster with a 61 fps average, while the RX 7600 remained significantly faster at 65 fps. Once again, the step up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB was staggering, with that GPU producing 99 fps for a massive 87% performance increase over the RX 9050.
At 1440p, it became clear that the Radeon RX 9050 8GB was completely out of its depth, at least using the Ultra preset. Managing just 32 fps on average, the experience was essentially unplayable. It narrowly beat the aging RTX 3050, which sat at the bottom of our graph with just 27 fps.
More concerning was that the RX 9050 trailed the much older RX 6600 in average frame rate, although it did offer slightly better 1% lows at 28 fps versus 26 fps. The direct competition wasn't kind, either. Nvidia's RTX 5050 was 31% faster with a 42 fps average, while the RX 7600 delivered 46 fps.
For a genuinely playable 1440p experience, you'll have to step up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB, which delivered a much smoother 69 fps average. Nice. That represents a staggering 116% performance increase over the RX 9050, demonstrating the massive gulf in AMD's product stack.
Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty
Moving on to Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty, we'll start with the 1080p results using the slightly dialed-down High preset. Here, the RX 9050 managed a smooth 67 fps. It maintained a solid 31% lead over the RTX 3050 and finished 12% ahead of the RX 6600.
Nvidia's RTX 5050 edged ahead by 7% with 72 fps, while the RX 7600 extended that lead to 21% with 81 fps. Stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a huge 66% performance increase, reaching a 111 fps average for those seeking high-refresh-rate performance on a budget.
At 1440p, the RX 9050 averaged 44 fps. That gave it a healthy 38% advantage over the RTX 3050 and a 22% lead over the RX 6600. However, it fell behind the modern entry-level competition. The RTX 5050 was 16% faster with 51 fps, while the RX 7600 held a 20% advantage with 53 fps.
For those targeting more than 60 fps at 1440p, the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered 76 fps, representing a massive 73% performance increase over the RX 9050.
Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered
Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered at 1080p using the Very High preset allowed the RX 9050 8GB to sail past 60 fps, delivering a 104 fps average. That placed it 33% ahead of the RTX 3050 and 27% ahead of the RX 6600. In a surprising result, it even edged out the RX 7600 by 2%.
However, Nvidia's RTX 5050 retained a 19% lead at 124 fps, while the RX 9060 XT 8GB surged to 182 fps, a massive 75% performance increase over the RX 9050.
At 1440p, the RX 9050 8GB remained above the 60 fps threshold with a solid 65 fps average. That placed it 16% ahead of the RTX 3050 and 33% ahead of the RX 6600.
However, the RX 7600 reclaimed its lead at this resolution, outperforming the RX 9050 by 15% with 75 fps, while the RTX 5050 was 32% faster with 86 fps. Meanwhile, upgrading to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered an 86% performance increase, pushing the average frame rate to 121 fps.
Hogwarts Legacy
Moving on to Hogwarts Legacy, the RX 9050 averaged 56 fps at 1080p using the High preset, falling just short of the 60 fps mark. It held a 19% advantage over the RTX 3050 and effectively matched the RX 6600.
Once again, however, the modern entry-level alternatives pulled away significantly. The RTX 5050 was 25% faster at 70 fps, while the RX 7600 led by 36% with 76 fps. The RX 9060 XT 8GB dominated with 105 fps, offering an 88% performance increase over the RX 9050.
At 1440p, we saw significant strain on this low-end hardware, with the RX 9050 averaging just 43 fps. It maintained a 19% lead over the RTX 3050 but merely tied the older RX 6600.
Nvidia's RTX 5050 was 28% faster with 55 fps, while the RX 7600 pulled ahead by 37% at 59 fps. The step up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB was particularly dramatic here, delivering 84 fps for a staggering 95% performance increase.
Starfield
In Starfield at 1080p using the Ultra preset, the RX 9050 8GB delivered just 34 fps on average. That placed it 21% ahead of both the RTX 3050 and RX 6600, which tied at 28 fps.
Nvidia's RTX 5050 was 21% faster with 41 fps, while the RX 7600 pulled ahead by a significant 41% margin. Upgrading to the RX 9060 XT 8GB resulted in a 74% performance increase, raising the average to 59 fps.
At 1440p, the RX 9050 dropped to an average of 26 fps. It maintained an 18% advantage over the RTX 3050 and remained 24% ahead of the RX 6600.
The RTX 5050 was 23% faster with 32 fps, while the RX 7600 reached 35 fps for a 35% lead. Stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered an 81% performance increase, averaging 47 fps.
Stalker 2: Heart of Chornobyl
Stalker 2 at 1080p using the Epic preset proved extremely demanding, with the RX 9050 managing a modest 33 fps average. That allowed it to match Nvidia's RTX 5050 frame for frame while beating the RTX 3050 by 18% and the RX 6600 by 10%.
The RX 7600 maintained a noticeable 27% lead with 42 fps, while stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a 61% performance increase, raising the average to 53 fps.
At 1440p, we hit a VRAM wall. Nearly every card with 8GB or less completely collapsed, with the RX 9050 8GB averaging an unplayable 8 fps. The RTX 3050, RX 6600, RTX 5050, and RX 7600 all suffered a similar fate.
Remarkably, even the 8GB version of the RX 9060 XT collapsed to just 9 fps, making its 13% lead over the RX 9050 meaningless. Meanwhile, the 16GB RX 9060 XT managed 42 fps. That's certainly not amazing, but it's dramatically better than the 8GB version.
Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2
Moving on to Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2, we'll again start with the 1080p results using the Ultra preset. Here, the RX 9050 averaged 56 fps, placing it in a direct tie with Intel's Arc B580. It also delivered a 22% uplift over the entry-level RTX 3050 and held an 8% advantage over the older RX 6600.
However, the newer alternatives pulled away significantly. The RX 7600 was 25% faster at 70 fps, while the RTX 5050 claimed a 38% lead with 77 fps. Moving up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a substantial 68% performance increase, reaching 94 fps.
At 1440p, the RX 9050 8GB dropped to a 39 fps average. It maintained a 22% lead over the RTX 3050 and beat the RX 6600 by 11%.
However, the newer competitors extended their advantage. The RX 7600 reached 48 fps, making it 23% faster, while the RTX 5050 delivered 53 fps for a 36% lead. Stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB resulted in an impressive 79% performance increase, producing a smooth 70 fps.
10 Game Average
Finally, we have our 10-game average data, starting with the 1080p results. Here, the Radeon RX 9050 8GB sat firmly in entry-level territory with a 49 fps average. It managed a 23% lead over the aging RTX 3050 but was just 11% faster than the old Radeon RX 6600.
However, the more modern entry-level options were far more impressive. The RTX 5050 was 20% faster on average with 59 fps, while the older RX 7600 outpaced the RX 9050 by 22% with a 60 fps average.
For buyers considering the current Radeon generation, stepping up to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a massive 76% performance increase, raising the average to a far more capable 86 fps. Overall, the RX 9050 landed near the bottom of the modern 1080p options.
Looking at the 1440p 10-game average, the RX 9050 managed just 33 fps, demonstrating that native 1440p is a tall order for this card, particularly when using higher-quality settings. Even so, it held a massive 50% advantage over the bottom-tier RTX 3050 and finished 27% ahead of the older RX 6600.
Interestingly, it matched Nvidia's RTX 5050 frame for frame at 33 fps and remained close to the RX 7600, which was just 6% faster at 35 fps. However, upgrading to the RX 9060 XT 8GB delivered a substantial 61% performance increase, raising the average to 53 fps.
Power Usage
Power consumption could have been a saving grace of sorts for the Radeon RX 9050, but sadly, no. Had AMD managed a 75W power limit, the card could have been powered exclusively through the PCI Express slot. That wasn't possible, even at this performance level, as the RX 9050 is a 92W graphics card. Its power requirements are still very low, but it does require an external PCIe power connector.
In our testing, when combining PCIe and EPS power, the RX 9050 configuration consumed around 180W, approximately 80W less than systems using the Arc B580 or RTX 4060 Ti. So, the RX 9050 does sip power, but it's also really slow, making this result less exciting than it might initially appear.
Cost Per Frame
As we noted at the start of this review, the Radeon RX 9050's biggest issue is its combination of poor performance and a high price, and that is best illustrated by the cost-per-frame graph. Honestly, wow. Thanks, AMD. Whatever did budget gamers do before the RX 9050 arrived?
Some will argue that it's good to see AMD release a cheaper, lower-tier RDNA 4 graphics card because this is exactly what budget gamers need. While we agree that the market needs more affordable graphics cards, that rather defeats the purpose when the new products are only as good as, or in this case worse than, what is already available.
The GeForce RTX 5060 wasn't exactly amazing at its $300 launch MSRP, and at $460, it's a joke. That pricing is disgustingly bad, yet somehow the RX 9050 only manages to roughly match it in cost per frame.
The RTX 5050 was an even bigger joke. It's supposed to cost $250, but it currently sells for $320, and in our review, we called it e-waste. Given that, we're not sure what to make of the even slower and worse-value RX 9050. Sure, the GeForce GPU is technically more expensive, but a $40 difference is hardly significant.
Even cheaper than the RTX 5050 is Intel's Arc B580 at $310. Not only do you receive a more appropriate 12GB of VRAM, but it's also 27% faster than the RX 9050 and offers over 10% better value per frame.
Then there's AMD's own Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB. Sure, it costs quite a bit more at $400, and we don't expect everyone to be able to find another $120. But that's not the point. The point is that buyers who can't afford the extra money are getting screwed, as the RX 9060 XT offers around 20% better value.
Budget Gamers Deserve Much Better Than This
AMD is doing budget gamers no favors with the RX 9050. If anything, it might as well be spitting in their faces. The performance is horrible for a current-generation product, and the value is even worse. Realistically, this product can't be priced above $200 if it's going to make any sense. I don't care how much VRAM costs. The product still needs to represent reasonable value, and at $280, the RX 9050 makes no sense and therefore need not exist.
Image from a previous TechSpot review, shown for illustrative purposes
We're also comparing the RX 9050's $280 MSRP against real retail pricing for existing GPUs. If the RX 9050 reaches stores at $300 or more, it will be an even bigger disaster. It really does annoy me that buyers on the tightest budgets are being screwed the hardest by AMD and Nvidia. Unfortunately, all you can really do is refuse to buy these trash-tier products.
Sadly, the RX 9050 8GB isn't even close to being the worst news from this release. Believe it or not, this is the "good" model. It certainly looks good compared with the OEM-only version that AMD has confirmed will ship in at least one prebuilt PC.
Image from a previous TechSpot review, shown for illustrative purposes
Despite sharing the exact same product name, the RX 9050 will have a 4GB OEM version with half the VRAM and half the memory bandwidth. Its performance is going to be abysmal, and even worse, I imagine it will be sold for around $250. We can't confirm that price, however, and it remains an educated guess. Anyway, I plan to do whatever it takes to obtain one. Even if I have to fly across the world, I will eventually benchmark the 4GB RX 9050.
For now, though, that concludes our review of the horrible Radeon RX 9050 8GB. Obviously, don't buy this thing. Either shop second-hand, consider alternatives such as the Arc B580, or save for the RX 9060 XT, ideally the 16GB model if you can afford it.