AMD Radeon RX 7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 9050 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon RX 7400 and the AMD Radeon RX 9050?

A: The RX 7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture on a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors, while the RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 on a 4 nm process with 29,700 million transistors. The RX 9050 also features a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface compared to the RX 7400's PCIe 4.0 x8.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is identical at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The RX 7400 delivers 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.97 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units versus 1024 on the RX 9050.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 7400 has a TDP of 43 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W and a single 6-pin connector. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the RX 9050?

A: The database currently contains no benchmark scores for the RX 9050. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed. The RX 7400, by contrast, has eight recorded benchmark scores.

Q: How does the RX 7400 rank among all GPUs?

A: The RX 7400 sits at the 17th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2467. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 8040S at 2440, a 1.1% difference.

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different generations of AMD's Radeon RX lineup. The RX 7400 is part of the Radeon RX 7000 series, built on the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The RX 9050 belongs to the Radeon RX 9000 series, using the Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The RX 7400 uses TSMC's 6 nm node, while the RX 9050 uses the newer 4 nm node. Transistor counts reflect this generational leap: the RX 7400 packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2M per mm². The RX 9050 contains 29,700 million transistors on a slightly smaller 199 mm² die, achieving 149.2M per mm², more than double the density.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The RX 7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 28 ray tracing cores. The RX 9050 has fewer shading units at 1024, 64 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer cores, the RX 9050 reaches a higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 2300 MHz on the RX 7400. The base clocks are 1330 MHz and 1452 MHz respectively, and the game clocks are 1920 MHz and 2200 MHz.

Memory subsystems are identical in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth: 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 288.0 GB/s. The memory clock is the same at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The RX 9050 upgrades the bus interface to PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs differ slightly. The RX 7400 provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The RX 9050 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The RX 9050 is listed as Active in production status, while the RX 7400 has no recorded production status. The RX 7400's release date is August 7, 2025, and the RX 9050 follows on July 27, 2026. The RX 7400's predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV, meaning the RX 9050 (Navi IV) directly succeeds it. The RX 9050 has no recorded successor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the RX 7400 and the RX 9050. There are zero wins recorded for either card in this comparison. The RX 9050 has an empty benchmark array, indicating no measured performance data exists yet.

For the RX 7400, eight individual benchmark scores are recorded. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 1103. PassMark tests show 59 in DirectX 10, 97 in DirectX 11, 44 in DirectX 12, and 176 in DirectX 9. The PassMark G2D score is 1209, the G3D score is 11897, and the GPU compute score is 5152. These results produce an average benchmark score of 2467.

Without RX 9050 benchmark data, a numerical comparison cannot be made. The RX 9050's percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs suggests it sits at the median, while the RX 7400 ranks at the 17th percentile. However, the absence of actual scores means the percentile figure for the RX 9050 is not supported by recorded measurements in the database.

The RX 7400's nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. The AMD Radeon 8040S averages 2440, just 1.1% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433, a 1.4% gap. Intel HD Graphics 610 averages 2425, 1.8% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M trails at 2422, a 1.9% difference. These rivals cluster tightly around the RX 7400, indicating its measured performance level.

The data shows the RX 7400 is positioned among entry-level or legacy mobile GPUs based on its benchmark scores. The RX 9050, with no scores, cannot be placed relative to these rivals. Its architectural specifications suggest a different performance class, but the database does not yet contain the evidence to confirm this.

The Verdict

The RX 7400 is the only card with recorded performance data, making it the sole basis for a verdict in measured terms. Its average benchmark score of 2467 and 17th percentile ranking place it firmly in the entry-level segment. The nearest rivals, all within 1.9% of its average score, confirm this positioning.

The RX 9050's architecture promises a different profile. It uses a newer 4 nm process, doubles the transistor density, and reaches a higher boost clock of 2600 MHz. However, it has fewer shading units (1024 versus 1792), fewer TMUs (64 versus 112), and lower FP32 throughput (10.65 TFLOPS versus 16.49 TFLOPS). Its TDP of 92 W is more than double the RX 7400's 43 W.

For users relying on measured data, the RX 7400 delivers known results across eight benchmark tests. The RX 9050 offers no recorded scores, so its real-world performance remains unverified in the database. The RX 9050's 50th percentile ranking is noted, but without supporting benchmark numbers, it cannot be weighed against the RX 7400's concrete results.

The RX 7400 shows a texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s. The RX 9050 records a texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s. These figures indicate the RX 7400 excels in texture throughput, while the RX 9050 has a slight edge in pixel fill rate.

The choice between these two depends entirely on whether measured data or architectural potential takes priority. The RX 7400 has proven benchmark scores. The RX 9050 has superior manufacturing technology and a faster bus interface, but no performance measurements exist to validate its capabilities.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Series: Radeon RX 7000 series versus Radeon RX 9000 series
• Chip: Navi 33 versus Navi 44
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus RDNA 4.0
• Codename: Hotpink Bonefish versus none recorded
• Generation: Navi III (RX 7000) versus Navi IV (RX 9000)
• Process node: 6 nm versus 4 nm
• Transistors: 13,300 million versus 29,700 million
• Die size: 204 mm² versus 199 mm²
• Transistor density: 65.2M / mm² versus 149.2M / mm²
• Base clock: 1452 MHz versus 1330 MHz
• Boost clock: 2300 MHz versus 2600 MHz
• Game clock: 2200 MHz versus 1920 MHz
• Shading units: 1792 versus 1024
• TMUs: 112 versus 64
• RT cores: 28 versus 16
• Pixel rate: 147.2 GPixel/s versus 166.4 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 257.6 GTexel/s versus 166.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 16.49 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS
• FP16: 32.97 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 43 W versus 92 W
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 200 W versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a
• Production status: None recorded versus Active
• Release date: August 7, 2025 versus July 27, 2026
• Predecessor: Navi II versus Navi III
• Successor: Navi IV versus none recorded

Fields that are identical include memory size (8 GB), memory type (GDDR6), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (288.0 GB/s), memory clock (2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective), ROPs (64), slot width (Dual-slot), DirectX support (12 Ultimate, 12_2), OpenGL (4.6), and Vulkan (1.4).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance of 16.49 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS by a substantial margin. FP16 throughput is even more lopsided: 32.97 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS, though the RX 7400 achieves this via 2:1 ratio while the RX 9050 runs at 1:1. The RX 7400 also has more shading units (1792 versus 1024) and more TMUs (112 versus 64), which explains its higher texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s against the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s. Applications that depend on texture-heavy workloads favor the RX 7400.

The RX 9050 wins in pixel fill rate, recording 166.4 GPixel/s versus the RX 7400's 147.2 GPixel/s. Its higher boost clock of 2600 MHz, compared to 2300 MHz, contributes to this advantage despite fewer shading units. The RX 9050 also uses a newer 4 nm manufacturing process with more than double the transistor density (149.2M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm²), indicating a more modern design. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface offers double the bandwidth of the RX 7400's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters for data transfer between the GPU and system memory.

The RX 7400 wins on power efficiency. Its 43 W TDP is less than half the RX 9050's 92 W, and its suggested PSU of 200 W is lower than 250 W. The RX 7400 also uses a single 6-pin connector versus the RX 9050's 8-pin. Systems with limited power delivery favor the RX 7400.

The RX 9050 wins on connectivity and production readiness. It is marked as Active in production status, while the RX 7400 has no recorded status. The RX 9050's HDMI 2.1b output is a newer revision than the RX 7400's HDMI 2.1a.

Measured benchmark data gives the RX 7400 a clear edge in verified performance. Its eight recorded scores, including a PassMark G3D result of 11897 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 1103, provide concrete evidence of capability. The RX 9050 has no recorded benchmarks, so its architectural advantages remain theoretical until measurements are added to the database.

For users prioritizing established performance data, the RX 7400 is the only option with verified results. For users prioritizing modern manufacturing and interface technology, the RX 9050 offers architectural advantages, but its actual performance cannot be confirmed from the recorded data.