Monday, May 11th 2026

AMD Radeon 9050 Leaks With 8 GB VRAM, More Stream Processors Than 9060

It seems as though AMD's Radeon RX 9000-series GPU family may finally be getting a true entry-level variant. According to a recent report by VideoCardz citing a source inside one of AMD's AIB partners, AMD will soon announce the AMD Radeon RX 9050 with 8 GB of GDDR6 VRAM and a down-clocked version of AMD's Navi 44 GPU also used in the RX 9060. AMD has not yet revealed any details about the potential upcoming GPU, but there is a spec sheet divulging some of the details of the GPU, including a higher core count than the RX 9060. The card is expected to require a minimum 450 W PSU, suggesting reasonably low power draw, although likely not low enough to power off the PCIe slot alone.

The aforementioned spec sheet lists a Game clock of 1920 MHz and a Boost clock of up to 2600 MHz for the RX 9050, although, notably, the actual stream processor count is up from 1792 on the RX 9060 to 2048 on the 9050. It's entirely possible that we will see the GPU modding community come up with some way to hack a higher clock speed onto the 9050 via something like a 9060 XT vBIOS or some similar trick, but until then it's entirely likely that performance will be lower than the 9060, because the clock speeds are slower on the 9050—13% lower Boost clocks and 20% slower Game clocks. The reports also note that the specifications are preliminary, so it may be the case that some of the stream processors will be disabled to put the 9050 below the 9060. This non-finalized spec means we are also unlikely to see the Radeon RX 9050 launch anytime soon. The spec sheet also lists a PCIe 5 ×16 bus width and an HDMI 2.1b and dual DisplayPort 2.1a ports.
Source: VideoCardz
Add your own comment

78 Comments on AMD Radeon 9050 Leaks With 8 GB VRAM, More Stream Processors Than 9060

#1
Macro Device
Users: need AMD to come up with something that convincingly beats 5080.
AMD: release yet another 2-3 hundred bucks GPU that fills the most overcrowded niche possible.
Posted on Reply
#2
TheGeekn°72
I hope this to end up being a viable Low Profile alternative to the 4060 from gigabyte, the most compact RX9000 GPU was the 9060XT Reaper (fantastic card, I love mine) but the only actual Low Profile option with Radeon was the RX7400, nothing more capable than that
Macro DeviceUsers: need AMD to come up with something that convincingly beats 5080.
what's the buyer/user share of the-80 class?
Macro DeviceAMD: release yet another 2-3 hundred bucks GPU that fills the most overcrowded niche possible.
if it ends up being made as a Low Profile card, that will be a welcome option that only has a few NvidAI options (3050/4060/5050/5060) and one VERY low end option from Intel
Posted on Reply
#3
zus
The RX 9050 can be a pretty good card if it gets the same price and performance as the RX 7600. It fixes the two biggest issues of the RX 7600 (PCIe lanes and lack of FSR4), and it would make the RTX 5050 look kinda bad with its higher price and PCIe x8. The Arc B580 still has the VRAM advantage, but XeSS support is limited and Intel Arc it's just not on the same level of maturity unfortunately. The 9050 XT would be RTX 5060's competitor I guess? I think the 9060 XT 8GB and the 9050 XT would cannibalize each other's sales in that case, depending on which one offers the most bang for the buck.
Posted on Reply
#4
_JP_
I read the leak and I see 'Navi 44' nowhere. "Oh but the information obtained!", so why is "series" censored in the image, then?
Why wouldn't this just be an RX 7600 rehash is beyond me.
Posted on Reply
#5
windwhirl
Macro DeviceAMD: release yet another 2-3 hundred bucks GPU that fills the most overcrowded niche possible.
I don't really get the point of making another model with those specifications either.
TheGeekn°72if it ends up being made as a Low Profile card
If they haven't made one with the 9060 vanilla, doubt it's gonna happen with this one either.
TheGeekn°72but the only actual Low Profile option with Radeon was the RX7400
Probably because it's a 55W card. The 9060 vanilla starts at 130W and this 9050 one will likely start at around the same range because it's gonna be a 9060 XT configuration with lower clocks.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheGeekn°72
windwhirlProbably because it's a 55W card. The 9060 vanilla starts at 130W and this 9050 one will likely start at around the same range because it's gonna be a 9060 XT configuration with lower clocks.
do you mind pulling the specs of the LP 4060/5050/5060 and tell to the class what is their TDP?
Posted on Reply
#7
Simkin
zusThe RX 9050 can be a pretty good card if it gets the same price and performance as the RX 7600. It fixes the two biggest issues of the RX 7600 (PCIe lanes and lack of FSR4), and it would make the RTX 5050 look kinda bad with its higher price and PCIe x8. The Arc B580 still has the VRAM advantage, but XeSS support is limited and Intel Arc it's just not on the same level of maturity unfortunately. The 9050 XT would be RTX 5060's competitor I guess? I think the 9060 XT 8GB and the 9050 XT would cannibalize each other's sales in that case, depending on which one offers the most bang for the buck.
None of these cards need PCIe 16x, even on a high end card the difference is within 1-3%

They would have been fine even on PCIe 3.0

Saying one of the biggest issue with the RX 7600 is 8x lanes is obscure.

Posted on Reply
#8
zus
SimkinNone of these cards need PCIe 16x, even on a high end card the difference is within 1-3%

They would have been fine even on PCIe 3.0

Saying one of the biggest issue with the RX 7600 is 8x lanes is obscure.
It matters when you have low VRAM. The 9060 XT 16GB can do just fine with PCIe 3.0 x16 (or PCIe 4.0 x8), but the PCIe bus makes the VRAM bottleneck more evident on the 8GB model. A RX 7600 + Ryzen 5 5500 would do even worse than in the picture, you would only get PCIe 3.0 x8 (or PCIe 2.0 x16) bandwidth.

Source: www.techspot.com/review/3003-amd-radeon-9060-xt-pcie-benchmark/
Posted on Reply
#9
Lew Zealand
windwhirlProbably because it's a 55W card. The 9060 vanilla starts at 130W and this 9050 one will likely start at around the same range because it's gonna be a 9060 XT configuration with lower clocks.
Compared to it's predecessors:

RX 6400: 51W, RDNA2, 6nm PCIe4 x4, 768 shaders, 2300MHz, 4GB on a 64-bit bus
RX 7400: 55W, RDNA3, 6nm, PCIe4 x8, 1792 shaders, 2300 MHz, 8GB on a 128-bit bus
"RX 9050 XT": 55W?, RDNA4, 4nm, PCIe5 x16, 2048 shaders, 2600 MHz, 8GB on a 128-bit bus

Seems possible. But yeah what are the chances the rest of the world gets this when the 7400 is Asia-only.
Posted on Reply
#10
mrnagant
Yields must be really good if it is still 32CU.

If the main thing it ends up being is a low wattage card, pretty neat. But then why not just lower the price of the Navi44 series? Then let the vendors decide TDP if they want to come out with a low powered, low profile, no-fan card.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vya Domus
zusIt matters when you have low VRAM. The 9060 XT 16GB can do just fine with PCIe 3.0 x16 (or PCIe 4.0 x8), but the PCIe bus makes the VRAM bottleneck more evident on the 8GB model. A RX 7600 + Ryzen 5 5500 would do even worse than in the picture, you would only get PCIe 3.0 x8 (or PCIe 2.0 x16) bandwidth.
If you are running out of VRAM it's game over regardless, 8GB cards need to be left in the dust.
Posted on Reply
#12
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Macro DeviceUsers: need AMD to come up with something that convincingly beats 5080.
AMD: release yet another 2-3 hundred bucks GPU that fills the most overcrowded niche possible.
It's only overcrowded if you take used cards into account. Where I live there are exactly zero cards in this market. Maybe the 5060 if you can find a deal on it.
Posted on Reply
#13
Fouquin
Macro DeviceAMD: release yet another 2-3 hundred bucks GPU that fills the most overcrowded niche possible.
The lower the segment the less niche it is. In 2004 ATi represented their market segmentation figures by stating that each named segment was 10x larger than the segment above it. This meaning that entry level add-in boards shipped 100x as much volume as enthusiast level flagship products. In those segments they sold a million chips a week.

Well it's been 22 years since then and the consumer graphics market clearly hasn't gotten any smaller, and the appetite for cheap options is even stronger due to inflated pricing across every segment. Flagships are niche, everything below that is where the money is really made in consumer graphics.
Posted on Reply
#14
TheinsanegamerN
TheGeekn°72do you mind pulling the specs of the LP 4060/5050/5060 and tell to the class what is their TDP?
I think you kissed the rest of his comment. He already pointed out that AMD didn't make a LP 9060, and that card has a lower TEP then the LP 4060. So it's extremely unlikely they will make a LP 9050.

And I mean they are not wrong. AMD has a tiny market share and a tiny niche of that tiny market won't sell enough to cover the R&D costs.
TheGeekn°72what's the buyer/user share of the-80 class?
Well according to Steam, a larger share then ANY AMD GPU on the list, including the 7800xt, the 7700, the 6600, the 6700, ece ece ece.

This argument got put down back with Pascal. The high end market is plenty large enough to justify its existence. The 7900xtx has a larger market presence then the 9070.
Posted on Reply
#16
Visible Noise
AMD, always moving the industry forward.

Maybe they will come out with a 6GB GPU in the second half of the year.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheGeekn°72
TheinsanegamerNI think you kissed the rest of his comment. He already pointed out that AMD didn't make a LP 9060, and that card has a lower TEP then the LP 4060. So it's extremely unlikely they will make a LP 9050.
I figure that no one tried for some reason I'm unaware of, maybe die supply?
TheinsanegamerNAnd I mean they are not wrong. AMD has a tiny market share and a tiny niche of that tiny market won't sell enough to cover the R&D costs.
if powercolor made a card as compact as the Reaper and it became as successful as it is with the SFF community, there's a chance that it might seem appealing to make an LP card with a Radeon 9000 die, at least I hope they see it that way...
TheinsanegamerNWell according to Steam, a larger share then ANY AMD GPU on the list, including the 7800xt, the 7700, the 6600, the 6700, ece ece ece.
I'm not talking about nvidAI vs AMD, I'm saying that I don't think NvidAI users that are on sub-80 class are looking to get a GPU that reliably beats the -80 class
the logic of AMD behind the limited line up of RX9000 at launch makes sense, why bother beating NvidAI at every tier when they can just equal on perf and offer better value? you can get 70Ti performance with the 70XT for less money, hence my comment "what is the buyer/user share of the -80 class [and does it make sense to go after it if that's a limited portion of the customer base that's willing to shill out 1600 for a 16GB GPU]?"
TheinsanegamerNThis argument got put down back with Pascal. The high end market is plenty large enough to justify its existence.
it's large enough to justify itself but wasn't large enough to be worthwhile of spending RX9000 R&D budget on it (I presume they're reallocating that to Big Navi RDNA5 aka AT0?)
TheinsanegamerNThe 7900xtx has a larger market presence then the 9070.
it had an over two years long headstart and is only ahead of the 9070XT because moving to it would be a side grade trading extra VRAM for RDNA4/FSR4, maybe worthwhile but just a hassle
and is liked for the same reason the 3090 is still sold, AI bros want that VRAM and 4090s are frickin expensive
Posted on Reply
#18
AusWolf
Make it in half height form factor, pretty please!
Posted on Reply
#19
Let3r
Honestly, I didn’t even know the non xt variant came out. It totally flew under the radar. The 9060 should be renamed 9050 and the 9050 renamed 9060 to resolve confusion in prebuilts.
Posted on Reply
#20
AusWolf
Let3rHonestly, I didn’t even know the non xt variant came out.
Because it didn't. Not in the DIY space at least.
Posted on Reply
#21
mechtech
Well if it's $300cad that's fine. I don't feel like paying $600cad for a gpu just to run 2d desktop and older games that run fine on an 8 yr old gpu.
Posted on Reply
#22
TheinsanegamerN
TheGeekn°72I figure that no one tried for some reason I'm unaware of, maybe die supply?

if powercolor made a card as compact as the Reaper and it became as successful as it is with the SFF community, there's a chance that it might seem appealing to make an LP card with a Radeon 9000 die, at least I hope they see it that way...
The much simpler answer is that it is a niche market (dual slot LP GPUs) of a niche market (AMD GPUs) of a niche market (gaming GPUs) and that such numbers dont justify the costs.

LP cards are not cheap. They use smaller, more expensive components to fit the VRM onto a half sized PCB and share few parts with larger cards. The Reapers could use the same PCB components as other cards, hell depending on how much they share they could even use the same PCBs as other models. We can look at the 5060LP, there are two, the Gigabyte and the Asus model. There was also a Zotac, but I couldnt find that one. The Asus has no reviews on Newegg, and the sole gigabyte model has about the same number of reviews as your typical 5060. There's a couple dozen different models.

Now consider that according to Steam, AMD has just 18% of the market. nVidia has 73%. We're being generous here, considering that AMD's share also includes iGPUs. So AMD sells 1 GPU for roughly every 4 nVidia sells. Is a quarter of an already small niche market in another small niche market in the overall GPU market really worth putting the R+D resources into, especially as DIY? sales crash due to RAM prices? I think we can all figure out the answer to that.
TheGeekn°72I'm not talking about nvidAI vs AMD, I'm saying that I don't think NvidAI users that are on sub-80 class are looking to get a GPU that reliably beats the -80 class
the logic of AMD behind the limited line up of RX9000 at launch makes sense, why bother beating NvidAI at every tier when they can just equal on perf and offer better value? you can get 70Ti performance with the 70XT for less money, hence my comment "what is the buyer/user share of the -80 class [and does it make sense to go after it if that's a limited portion of the customer base that's willing to shill out 1600 for a 16GB GPU]?"

it's large enough to justify itself but wasn't large enough to be worthwhile of spending RX9000 R&D budget on it (I presume they're reallocating that to Big Navi RDNA5 aka AT0?)

it had an over two years long headstart and is only ahead of the 9070XT because moving to it would be a side grade trading extra VRAM for RDNA4/FSR4, maybe worthwhile but just a hassle
and is liked for the same reason the 3090 is still sold, AI bros want that VRAM and 4090s are frickin expensive
Your addition to your previous argument that I bolded still makes no sense. If the 7900xtx outsold the 9070, then that would indicate that it would be more worthwhile to spend money on a big 9000 series over the 9070 series. That's the problem with this argument. Looking at nvidia's options, all their low end cards outsold the 5080......so why are AMD's not doing so?

The argument frankly has never made sense to me. What happens when you limit your lineup to just parts of the market is you hand your main competitor the rest of the market ona silver platter, granting them a monopoly and screwing your own customers over. Those like me who bought RX 6000 high end cards and decided to wait for the 9000s were left high and dry. The result? nVidia's super high margin high end card control the entire high end market and likely makes margins that dwarf AMD's entire lineup. We saw this with Polaris and Pascal. People said "AMD is right, the majority of sales are low end cards, why bother beating nVidia at every tier when they can just equal on perf and offer better value"? Well, they found out why, when the GTX 1070 outsold ALL OF POLARIS COMBINED, with each individual card having a higher profit margin then anything AMD made, giving nvidia a huge injection of cash (not even counting the 1070ti/1080/1080ti that were also unopposed) and forcing their own consumers to buy nVidia if they wanted to advance past 2013 levels of performance the 290x offered.

OOPS. That revenue that AMD gift wrapped for nVidia helped team green maintain their lead over AMD too. Double OOPS.

This "Logic" has resulted in AMD's collapsing marketshare, nVidia printing billions in additional capital, and high end buyers getting into the habit of buying nvidia cards. Yeah, that was a major screwup. It's not the AI bros buying used 7900xtxs pushing the Steam numbers up, it's AMD's own consumers sitting there with the last high end card they made, wondering if AMD will bother coming back and if it is even worth it given AMD's behavior, wondering if a 4080 would have been a better choice given DLSS4 and path tracing ece ece. It's hard to gain back consumer trust, and leaving a market makes it exponentially harder to get back in the game later (see also: the failure of vega 64).
Posted on Reply
#23
Let3r
mechtechWell if it's $300cad that's fine. I don't feel like paying $600cad for a gpu just to run 2d desktop and older games that run fine on an 8 yr old gpu.
But it won’t be 600 cad because the Rx 9060xt 8gb is 470 cad right now.
Posted on Reply
#24
mechtech
Let3rBut it won’t be 600 cad because the Rx 9060xt 8gb is 470 cad right now.
But the 16GB version starts at $600 and goes up................

And if the 8GB 9060xt is 470$ cad then this 9050 8GB could easily be $300cad.............

Just have to wait for reviews and pricing....................
Posted on Reply
#25
Let3r
mechtechBut the 16GB version starts at $600 and goes up................

And if the 8GB 9060xt is 470$ cad then this 9050 8GB could easily be $300cad.............

Just have to wait for reviews and pricing....................
But you just said 300 cad would be fine.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 15th, 2026 06:42 CST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts