AMD's new Radeon RX 9050 is roughly 30% slower than the RTX 5050 in games, early testing shows — the cheapest 8GB RDNA 4 GPU comfortably handles 1080p gaming but doesn't impress

AMD officially launched its cheapest RDNA 4 graphics card, the Radeon RX 9050, a few days ago, and we already have some performance numbers for it. Preliminary testing from Japanese outlet GDM puts the GPU up against its closest Nvidia rival, the RTX 5050, in a matchup that sees the AMD offering lose by a big margin. The RX 9050 is fine on its own, especially if you're limited to 1080p gaming, but in the head-to-head it leaves a lot to be desired based on its roughly 30% slower framerates averaged across various titles.

The test bench consisted of a Ryzen 7 9800X3D and specifically the ASRock Challenger variant of the 9050, alongside the Gigabyte Windforce OC variant of the RTX 5050. Starting with synthetic benchmarks, the Red Team's GPU is almost 20% slower in the 3DMark suite. The biggest difference lies in Port Royal, where the RTX 5050 scores 6,181 points but the RX 9050 only manages 4,531 points. Time Spy sees the smallest delta, where both cards are separated by about 500 points.

Moving onto gaming, the testing was conducted across multiple resolutions, so we've chosen to show the most representative results possible. When talking about esports titles such as Apex Legends and Rainbow Six Siege, the RX 9050 holds its ground well, especially as you scale up the resolution. At 4K Ultra+ settings, both GPUs actually match at 64 FPS. The biggest difference was 20%, reported at 1440p medium, where the RTX 5050 pushed 150 FPS while the RX 9050 could only manage 125 FPS.

The rest of the games show a more underwhelming result for the RX 9050, with DOOM: The Dark Ages acting as an outlier where both GPUs take turns destroying the other. The game has multi-frame gen support at up to 6x for the Nvidia card, while the FSR frame gen is limited to just 2x. Regardless, the RX 9050 wins at higher resolutions in all settings due. As mentioned, however, this is the only test where the 9050 seemed to beat the 5050.

The remaining titles show rather boring numbers where the RX 9050 loses every single time, no matter the resolution or preset. It comes the closest in Final Fantasy XIV at 1080p, where the internal benchmark separates the two GPUs by 23%, whereas the biggest difference lies in Onimusha, where the RTX 5050 is almost twice as fast. Across these games, on average, the RX 9050 is 31% slower at 1080p, 34% slower at 1440p, and 42% slower at 4K.

The RX 9050 scores a win in power consumption, drawing about 8W less when idling and about 35W less under heavy load compared to the RTX 5050. The card seems to run cool and quiet, and can be manufactured to be rather small, making it ideal for SFF builds. Overall, it's an okay experience when it comes to gaming, performing amicably in a vacuum, but disappointing against competition. Thankfully, the 4GB variant of the RX 9050 seems to be limited to OEMs. As always, these are preliminary testing results from one outlet, so take them with the customary grain of salt.

FollowTom's Hardware on Google News, or* add us as a preferred source**, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.*

Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.

Hassam Nasir is a die-hard hardware enthusiast with years of experience as a tech editor and writer, focusing on detailed CPU comparisons and general hardware news. When he’s not working, you’ll find him bending tubes for his ever-evolving custom water-loop gaming rig or benchmarking the latest CPUs and GPUs just for fun.

For comparison:Reply

AMD Radeon RX 9050 8GB: $279.00 USD (estimated) NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 8GB: $327.99 USD

(approx. 15% price difference)

BUT we will see when the products hit the shelves and we start see real prices.

The price is not right... yet. Also not available in all regions.Reply

As for the efficiency, we need numbers that isolate the GPUs from total system power consumption. It might be a situation where it is using 25% less power but getting 30-35% less performance. Which shows the folly of disabling half of the cores.