Radeon RX 9050 vs RX 480

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 480 and Radeon RX 9050, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX 480
2016, $229
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
20.38

RX 9050 outperforms RX 480 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking316264
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation13.76no data
Power efficiency10.5820.66
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameEllesmereNavi 44
GCN generation4th Genno data
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 June 2016 (10 years ago)28 July 2026 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores23041024
Compute units36no data
Core clock speed1120 MHz1330 MHz
Boost clock speed1266 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million29,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt92 Watt
Texture fill rate182.3166.4
Floating-point processing power5.834 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3264
TMUs14464
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L0 Cacheno data256 KB
L1 Cache576 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportn/ano data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length240 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 8-pin
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s288.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a
Eyefinity+-
HDMI2.0+
DisplayPort support1.4HDR-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAccelerationn/a-
CrossFire+-
Enduron/a-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3Dn/a-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudion/a-
ZeroCore+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.9
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan+1.4
Mantlen/a-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RX 480 20.38
RX 9050 24.40
+19.7%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX 480 8525
Samples: 12668
RX 9050 10208
+19.7%
Samples: 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD7790−95
+16.9%
1440p5160−65
+17.6%
4K3640−45
+11.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.97no data
1440p4.49no data
4K6.36no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 55−60 65−70
+16.1%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 140−150
+19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 50−55
+11.1%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 55−60 65−70
+16.1%
Battlefield 5 85−90 100−105
+17.6%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 140−150
+19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 50−55
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 65−70 80−85
+17.6%
Fortnite 207 240−250
+15.9%
Forza Horizon 4 100 110−120
+10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 95−100
+18.8%
Valorant 150−160 170−180
+13.3%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 55−60 65−70
+16.1%
Battlefield 5 85−90 100−105
+17.6%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120 140−150
+19.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 285 300−310
+5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 50−55
+11.1%
Dota 2 110−120 130−140
+14%
Far Cry 5 65−70 80−85
+17.6%
Far Cry 6 55−60 65−70
+12.1%
Fortnite 79 90−95
+13.9%
Forza Horizon 4 93 110−120
+18.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 78 90−95
+15.4%
Metro Exodus 41 45−50
+9.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85 95−100
+18.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 78 90−95
+15.4%
Valorant 150−160 170−180
+13.3%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 100−105
+17.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 50−55
+11.1%
Dota 2 110−120 130−140
+14%
Far Cry 5 65−70 80−85
+17.6%
Forza Horizon 4 77 90−95
+16.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45 50−55
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 50−55
+13.6%
Valorant 150−160 170−180
+13.3%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 65 75−80
+15.4%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45 50−55
+16.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160 170−180
+13.3%
Far Cry 6 30−35 40−45
+17.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 37 40−45
+8.1%
Metro Exodus 27−30 30−33
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+15.6%
Valorant 241 280−290
+16.2%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60 70−75
+18.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 20−22 21−24
+5%
Far Cry 5 45−50 55−60
+17%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 60−65
+13.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35 35−40
+9.4%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 39 45−50
+15.4%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 16−18 18−20
+5.9%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 21−24
+10.5%
Far Cry 6 10−12 12−14
+9.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 36 40−45
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 15 16−18
+6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27 30−33
+11.1%
Valorant 120 140−150
+16.7%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35 35−40
+9.4%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 21−24
+10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 9−10
+12.5%
Dota 2 88 100−105
+13.6%
Far Cry 5 24−27 27−30
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 40−45
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16 18−20
+12.5%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18 21−24
+16.7%

This is how RX 480 and RX 9050 compete in popular games:

  • RX 9050 is 17% faster in 1080p
  • RX 9050 is 18% faster in 1440p
  • RX 9050 is 11% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.38 24.40
Recency 29 June 2016 28 July 2026
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 92 Watt

RX 9050 has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 71% more advanced lithography process, and 39% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 9050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 480 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 2313 votes

Rate Radeon RX 480 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 16 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 480 or Radeon RX 9050, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.