AMD is reportedly developing an entry-level RDNA 4 GPU with 8GB of VRAM — RX 9050 rumored to debut with 2048 cores, more than RX 9060

AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT
(Image credit: AMD)

Despite the ongoing memory shortage, AMD is going against the grain and reportedly developing a new entry-level RDNA 4 graphics card to compete with the RTX 5050: Videocardz reports that AMD is cooking up an RX 9050 graphics card based on the Navi 44 die.

Despite the name, the reported specs of the RX 9050 are very similar to the RX 9060 XT 8GB rather than the vanilla RX 9060. In fact, the RX 9050’s specs are so similar to its XT counterpart that the GPU has more cores than the vanilla RX 9060. Videocard’s report claims the RX 9050 will come with 2048 cores with a game clock of up to 1,920 MHz and a boost clock of up to 2,600 MHz. Memory is comprised of 8GB of GDDR6 operating at 18Gbps across a 128-bit bus. The GPU is also reported to come with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, two DisplayPort 2.1a ports, and one HDMI 2.1b port.

For the uninitiated, the RX 9060 XT 8GB also features 2048 cores, 8GB of memory, and a 128-bit memory bus. Where the two GPUs differ is in clock speeds — the RX 9060 XT has a 24% clock speed advantage over the RX 9050, featuring a boost frequency of up to 3.1 GHz. Memory bandwidth is also slightly higher thanks to the inclusion of 20 Gbps GDDR6 modules. There’s no word yet on the RX 9050’s target board power, but the recommended power supply requirements for the RX 9060 XT 8GB suggest it will consume more power than the RX 9050.

Latest Videos From
Swipe to scroll horizontally
AMD Radeon RX 9050 rumored specifications
Row 0 - Cell 0

RX 9050

RX 9060

RX 9060 XT 8GB

GPU:

Navi 44 XT*

Navi 44 XL

Navi 44 XT

Cores:

2,048*

1,792

2,048

CUs:

32*

28

32

Game Clock:

1,920 MHz*

2,400 MHz

2,530 MHz

Boost Clock:

2,600 MHz*

2,990 MHz

3,130 MHz

Memory:

8GB GDDR6*

8GB GDDR6

8GB GDDR6

Bus-width

128-bit*

128-bit

128-bit

Target Board Power

N/A

132W

150W

*Specs unconfirmed by AMD

The RX 9050’s unorthodox specifications (in reference to its nomenclature) suggest AMD wants a better SKU to compete against the RTX 5050, specifically one more powerful than the vanilla RX 9060. If this weren’t the case, AMD could easily have repurposed its existing vanilla RX 9060 to serve both the OEM and DIY markets instead of creating a new SKU (the RX 9060 is currently OEM-exclusive). We have seen a report of the RX 9060 outperforming the RTX 5050 by 20%, but that's only one test. As usual, if the GPU does exist, we'll need to wait for third-party testing before drawing any conclusions.

Pricing is still unknown as well, but it is likely that AMD will target the RTX 5050’s street pricing with the RX 9050. The cheapest RTX 5050 at the time of writing is $289.

If AMD has a new GPU to announce, we'll likely hear about it at Computex 2026, which kicks off in Taipei in just a few weeks. AMD won't have a Computex keynote this year, breaking with its usual live event schedule, but AMD's AIB partners will undoubtedly be ready to show off RX 9050 models if the GPU is indeed real.

Google Preferred Source

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

Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

  • usertests
    There’s no word yet on the RX 9050’s target board power, but the recommended power supply requirements for the RX 9060 XT 8GB suggest it will consume more power than the RX 9050.
    Probably something above 75W for an RX 9050 if they want to make it look good against a 130W RTX 5050.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    usertests said:
    Probably something above 75W for an RX 9050 if they want to make it look good against a 130W RTX 5050.
    I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to release if it is above 75W. I have a hard time believing that their silicon variance is so high that they have parts that cannot clock higher than this rumor has them running. If it requires a PCIe power connector I'm not sure what stops someone from basically making it a 9060 XT through overclocking/vBIOS flashing.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    thestryker said:
    If it requires a PCIe power connector I'm not sure what stops someone from basically making it a 9060 XT through overclocking/vBIOS flashing.
    Cheap VRM and cooling, warranty, and technical dificulties. That said, it really is strange that they didn't take the smaller chip, or even sell the 9060 to the open market.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    Just did a quick search in stores online (in my country), and the 9060 XT 8GB is around 50% more expensive than the 7600, which is the cheapest AMD right now. Are they trying to replace the 7600 with another entry level card? If the price is right, it could be an amazing option.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    salgado18 said:
    Cheap VRM and cooling,
    There's virtually no way to skimp on power delivery enough if it's using >100W. It's not like the 9060 XT uses a lot of power in the first place.
    salgado18 said:
    warranty, and technical dificulties.
    This doesn't stop people from doing it on $2000+ cards so it sure wouldn't here either.
    salgado18 said:
    That said, it really is strange that they didn't take the smaller chip, or even sell the 9060 to the open market.
    It makes perfect sense if it's a 75W slot powered card, otherwise it does not.
    Reply
  • usertests
    thestryker said:
    I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to release if it is above 75W. I have a hard time believing that their silicon variance is so high that they have parts that cannot clock higher than this rumor has them running. If it requires a PCIe power connector I'm not sure what stops someone from basically making it a 9060 XT through overclocking/vBIOS flashing.
    AMD has closely copied Nvidia's naming scheme, they're going to want to have similar performance as well.

    I assumed 75W vs. 130W would be too much performance left on the table. But maybe not? I see Tom's review indicating the 9060 XT 8GB is ~24% faster (raster) than the 5050. TechPowerUp ranking has it at 32%, or even higher in the actual review.

    If AMD can get a little above or below the RTX 5050 by enabling the whole die, dropping the clocks, and getting the power draw down to 70-75W, then they'll have made something amazing. I just wouldn't count on it yet. There's a number of cards ending up in this 100-130W wasteland instead of 75W:

    RTX 3050 8GB - 115-130W
    RTX 4060 - 115W
    RTX 5050 - 130W
    RTX 5060 - 145W

    RX 6500 XT - 107-113W
    RX 6600 - 132W
    RX 7600 - 165W
    RX 9060 - 132W
    RX 9060 XT - 150-160W

    RX 9060 is 2.4 GHz game, 2.99 GHz boost
    RX 9060 XT is 2.53 GHz game, 3.13 GHz boost

    So the RX 9050's 1.92 GHz game, 2.6 GHz boost would be a big cut, but maybe they can only get it to around 100W. Like a 6500 XT.

    If we see an RX 9040, that would almost certainly be 50-75W. Like the OEM-only RX 7400 (55W).
    Reply
  • wwenze1
    So... Navi 44 dies that can't reach high clocks?
    Reply
  • Notton
    Looking at the rumored clock speeds, I doubt the 9050 is a 75W card.
    The clock speeds are too high, even for A+ binned chips.

    It's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but looking back to Navi 33, the 75W model, the 7600S (mobile), was heavily cut down from its 190W desktop 7600XT 16GB counterpart.

    The 9050 is 25% down clocked compared to the 9060XT. If you do the same thing with a 7600XT, you end up with a 7700S (mobile), and it's a 100W part.

    The naming scheme makes zero sense, but AMD has always done this... Looking at you, 7650 GRE
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Notton said:
    The 9050 is 25% down clocked compared to the 9060XT. If you do the same thing with a 7600XT, you end up with a 7700S (mobile), and it's a 100W part.
    7700S has a higher game clock than the 9050 and used the same speed memory as the desktop counterpart. Sure you can feel free to use that as a comparison, but it doesn't really work.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    usertests said:
    AMD has closely copied Nvidia's naming scheme, they're going to want to have similar performance as well.

    I assumed 75W vs. 130W would be too much performance left on the table. But maybe not? I see Tom's review indicating the 9060 XT 8GB is ~24% faster (raster) than the 5050. TechPowerUp ranking has it at 32%, or even higher in the actual review.

    If AMD can get a little above or below the RTX 5050 by enabling the whole die, dropping the clocks, and getting the power draw down to 70-75W, then they'll have made something amazing. I just wouldn't count on it yet. There's a number of cards ending up in this 100-130W wasteland instead of 75W:

    RTX 3050 8GB - 115-130W
    RTX 4060 - 115W
    RTX 5050 - 130W
    RTX 5060 - 145W

    RX 6500 XT - 107-113W
    RX 6600 - 132W
    RX 7600 - 165W
    RX 9060 - 132W
    RX 9060 XT - 150-160W
    Zero of your examples have a lower SKU with higher core count than the higher one.
    usertests said:
    So the RX 9050's 1.92 GHz game, 2.6 GHz boost would be a big cut, but maybe they can only get it to around 100W. Like a 6500 XT.
    Then it can be overclocked to a higher speed than the 9060 and doesn't make any sense to retail launch unless they're hard coding clock/power locks in which would be a whole other type of bad.
    Reply