AMD Radeon RX 7800M vs AMD Radeon RX 9050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a full benchmark suite for the AMD Radeon RX 7800M, but the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores. The RX 9050’s average benchmark score is listed as zero, with an empty benchmark array and no nearest rivals. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible for most tests.

The RX 7800M’s measured results span several DirectX versions and compute workloads. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records a score of 2994. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 120778, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 126668. Passmark results include 99 in DirectX 10, 176 in DirectX 11, 89 in DirectX 12, 174 in DirectX 9, 892 in G2D, 17613 in G3D, and 9342 in GPU compute. Its average benchmark score across all entries is 27883.

The RX 7800M sits at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 at 27839 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X at 27973 (0.3% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28020 (0.5% ahead), and the AMD FirePro S7150 at 28117 (0.8% ahead). These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating a tight performance cluster.

Because the RX 9050 has no scores, there are no head-to-head wins for either card. The data confirms that the RX 7800M is a measured, active product, while the RX 9050 is listed as active but unmeasured.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show the RX 7800M’s strengths across several API levels. Its Passmark G3D score of 17613 is the highest among its recorded tests, indicating strong general 3D rendering performance. The Passmark G2D score of 892 covers 2D operations. Compute workloads are represented by the Passmark GPU compute score of 9342 and the Geekbench OpenCL score of 120778.

The RX 7800M’s DirectX performance varies by version. DirectX 9 and DirectX 11 scores are similar at 174 and 176 respectively, while DirectX 10 and DirectX 12 scores are lower at 99 and 89. This pattern suggests the card handles older and widely used DirectX 11 titles effectively but shows relatively weaker numbers in the newer DirectX 12 and DirectX 10 paths.

The RX 9050 has no recorded wins in any category because no benchmark data exists for it. Its percentile ranking is 50, which is a placeholder rather than a measured result. Without scores, the database cannot assign it any performance advantages in specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the RX 7800M?

A: The RX 7800M has an average benchmark score of 27883 across all recorded tests.

Q: Does the RX 9050 have any benchmark scores?

A: No, the RX 9050’s benchmark array is empty, and its average benchmark score is listed as zero.

Q: How does the RX 7800M compare to its nearest rival in average score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 is 0.2% behind the RX 7800M, the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is 0.3% ahead, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti is 0.5% ahead, and the AMD FirePro S7150 is 0.8% ahead.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card?

A: The RX 7800M is at the 73rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 9050 is at the 50th percentile.

Q: Which card has a higher DirectX 11 Passmark score?

A: The RX 7800M records a Passmark DirectX 11 score of 176. The RX 9050 has no recorded DirectX scores.

Q: What is the RX 7800M’s best single benchmark result?

A: Its highest recorded score is the Geekbench Vulkan result of 126668.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in their core configuration. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The RX 9050 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 7800M also includes 60 ray tracing cores, while the RX 9050 includes 16.

Memory configurations are distinct. The RX 7800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both run memory at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed.

Clock speeds differ. The RX 7800M has a base clock of 1295 MHz, a game clock of 2145 MHz, and a boost clock of 2335 MHz. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 1920 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz.

Rates and compute figures are not comparable. The RX 7800M records 224.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, 560.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 35.87 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. The RX 9050 records 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, 166.4 GTexel/s texture rate, and 10.65 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16.

Power and physical specifications differ. The RX 7800M is rated at 180 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and is an integrated graphics processor with a Portable Device Dependent display output. The RX 9050 is rated at 92 W TDP, uses a single 8-pin power connector, requires a 250 W suggested PSU, and is a dual-slot card with 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs.

The bus interface differs. The RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The RX 7800M is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, codenamed Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The RX 9050 is built on the RDNA 4.0 architecture with the Navi 44 chip and belongs to the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ. The RX 7800M uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 9050 uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are close but not identical: 28,100 million for the RX 7800M versus 29,700 million for the RX 9050. Die size differs significantly, with the RX 7800M at 346 mm² and the RX 9050 at 199 mm². Transistor density is higher on the RX 9050 at 149.2M per mm², compared to 81.2M per mm² on the RX 7800M.

The RX 7800M has a 12 GB memory footprint, while the RX 9050 has 8 GB. Both use GDDR6, but the RX 7800M’s 192-bit bus gives it 50% more bandwidth than the RX 9050’s 128-bit bus.

The RX 7800M is the predecessor to the Polaris Mobile series, while the RX 9050 is the successor to Navi III. Neither card has a listed successor. The RX 7800M was released on September 10, 2024, while the RX 9050 has a release date of July 27, 2026.

Both cards support the same API set, including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but incomplete picture. The RX 7800M is a fully measured product with a substantial benchmark profile. Its average score of 27883 places it in the 73rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within one percentage point of its average score. The RX 9050 has no measured performance data at all.

For users selecting between these two cards based strictly on the database, the RX 7800M offers verified results across DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus compute and 2D workloads. Its highest scores appear in Vulkan and OpenCL. The RX 9050 cannot be evaluated for performance because no benchmark results exist.

The RX 7800M also provides more memory, a wider bus, higher bandwidth, and a larger shading unit count. Its TDP is higher at 180 W, but it uses no external power connectors, which suits an integrated form factor. The RX 9050, in contrast, is a dual-slot discrete card with a single 8-pin connector and a 250 W suggested PSU, yet it has fewer cores and less memory.

The RX 9050 does have advantages in process technology, using a smaller 4 nm node, a denser transistor layout, and a higher boost clock of 2600 MHz. It also supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RX 7800M is limited to PCIe 4.0 x16. These architectural differences, however, do not translate into measured performance in the database.

The verdict is straightforward: the RX 7800M is the only one of the two with recorded performance data, and that data shows a mid-to-high percentile card. The RX 9050 remains a specification-only entry with no verified scores, so any performance claims about it would lack database support. Users seeking a card with confirmed benchmark results should choose the RX 7800M. Users interested in a newer architecture with a smaller die and lower power draw might consider the RX 9050, but they must accept that its performance is unmeasured.