AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM vs Intel Arc A580 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data available covers only the Intel Arc A580, which holds a percentile rank of 87 among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, indicating it has not been evaluated with the same testing suite.

For the Arc A580, its three recorded results show a clear pattern. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2,229 points, a modest result for a synthetic DirectX 12 workload. Its OpenCL score of 91,657 and Vulkan score of 79,381 show strong compute performance in cross-platform APIs. The average benchmark score of 57,756 places it within 1.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT, which scores 58,392, and within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE at 57,367.

The RX 9050 OEM lacks any comparable wins because no benchmarks exist for it in the database. The Arc A580 therefore wins all three recorded tests by default, but the RX 9050 OEM's absence from the benchmark suite means its competitive position cannot be determined from the data. The wins column shows 0 for the RX 9050 OEM and 0 for the Arc A580 in head-to-head comparisons, as no direct paired benchmarks were recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM uses the Navi 44 chip on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Arc A580 uses the DG2-512 chip on Xe-HPG architecture, also built at TSMC but on a 6 nm process. The RX 9050 OEM belongs to the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation, while the Arc A580 belongs to the Alchemist (Arc 5) generation.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The RX 9050 OEM packs 29,700 million transistors into a 199 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 149.2 million per square millimeter. The Arc A580 contains 21,700 million transistors on a much larger 406 mm² die, giving a density of only 53.4 million per square millimeter. The RX 9050 OEM achieves more than twice the transistor density of the Arc A580, a direct consequence of the newer 4 nm node versus 6 nm.

The RX 9050 OEM uses 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Arc A580 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Arc A580 has three times the shading units and three times the TMUs, plus 50% more ROPs. The RX 9050 OEM has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Arc A580 has 24. Neither GPU lists tensor cores in the database.

Clock speeds also diverge. The RX 9050 OEM runs at a 1,330 MHz base clock, a 1,920 MHz game clock, and a 2,600 MHz boost clock. The Arc A580 has a 1,700 MHz base clock and a 2,000 MHz boost clock, with no game clock listed. The RX 9050 OEM boosts 30% higher than the Arc A580, but the Arc A580's larger shader count compensates in raw throughput.

Process node advantages show in power consumption. The RX 9050 OEM has a 92 W TDP, while the Arc A580 draws 175 W. The RX 9050 OEM uses a single 8-pin power connector and suggests a 250 W PSU; the Arc A580 requires two 8-pin connectors and suggests a 450 W PSU. The RX 9050 OEM also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the Arc A580 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. For raw compute throughput, the Arc A580 leads. Its FP32 performance of 12.29 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 9050 OEM's 10.65 TFLOPS by 15.4%. Its FP16 performance of 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1 rate) more than doubles the RX 9050 OEM's 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1 rate). The Arc A580's texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is 130.8% higher than the RX 9050 OEM's 166.4 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s beats the RX 9050 OEM's 166.4 GPixel/s by 15.4%.

For memory bandwidth, the Arc A580 is dominant. It has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s. The RX 9050 OEM has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The Arc A580's bandwidth is 255.6% higher, and its memory capacity is double. The RX 9050 OEM's memory clock runs at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Arc A580 runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), but the bus width difference overwhelms the clock advantage.

For efficiency, the RX 9050 OEM wins decisively. Its 92 W TDP is 47.4% lower than the Arc A580's 175 W. The FP32 performance per watt works out to 115.8 GFLOPS/W for the RX 9050 OEM versus 70.2 GFLOPS/W for the Arc A580, a 64.9% efficiency advantage. The RX 9050 OEM achieves this with a 4 nm node, while the Arc A580 uses 6 nm.

The Arc A580's benchmark percentile of 87 versus the RX 9050 OEM's 50 indicates the database has far more confidence in the Arc A580's measured performance. The RX 9050 OEM has no recorded scores, meaning its actual performance remains unverified. Users who need verified compute results should favor the Arc A580. Users who prioritize low power draw and compact system requirements should consider the RX 9050 OEM, as its 92 W TDP permits simpler cooling and power delivery.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Intel Arc A580 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32, which is 15.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 9050 OEM's 10.65 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Arc A580 provides 512.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6, while the RX 9050 OEM provides 144.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB GDDR6. The Arc A580's bandwidth is 255.6% higher.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RX 9050 OEM has a 92 W TDP and suggests a 250 W PSU with one 8-pin connector. The Arc A580 has a 175 W TDP and suggests a 450 W PSU with two 8-pin connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Arc A580 has 3,072 shading units, exactly three times the RX 9050 OEM's 1,024 shading units. The Arc A580 also has 192 TMUs versus 64, and 96 ROPs versus 64.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 9050 OEM achieves 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter on a 4 nm node, while the Arc A580 achieves 53.4 million per square millimeter on a 6 nm node. The RX 9050 OEM's density is 179.4% higher.

Q: Does the RX 9050 OEM have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark scores for the RX 9050 OEM. The Arc A580 has three recorded scores: 2,229 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 91,657 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 79,381 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark pairs exist between the RX 9050 OEM and the Arc A580 in the database. The winsA and winsB fields both record 0, confirming that no paired tests were run. However, the Arc A580's standalone results allow comparison against its nearest rivals, which provides context for its performance tier.

The Arc A580's average benchmark score of 57,756 sits between the AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE at 57,367 (0.7% lower) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM at 58,085 (0.6% higher). The Intel Arc A570M scores 58,239, which is 0.8% above the Arc A580, and the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT scores 58,392, which is 1.1% above. These deltas show the Arc A580 clustering tightly with four other GPUs within a 1.8% spread, indicating that its performance level is well established.

The RX 9050 OEM has no such context. Its 50th percentile rank is based on no measured scores, so it cannot be placed relative to the Arc A580's 87th percentile with any confidence. The FP32 and memory data suggest the Arc A580 holds a substantial theoretical advantage, but the RX 9050 OEM's efficiency metrics indicate a different design goal. The 4 nm node and 92 W TDP point to a low-power part, while the Arc A580's 175 W TDP and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth target higher throughput.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: Navi 44 (RX 9050 OEM) versus DG2-512 (Arc A580)
• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 versus Xe-HPG
• Generation: Navi IV (RX 9000) versus Alchemist (Arc 5)
• Process node: 4 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 29,700 million versus 21,700 million
• Die size: 199 mm² versus 406 mm²
• Transistor density: 149.2M / mm² versus 53.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 1,330 MHz versus 1,700 MHz
• Boost clock: 2,600 MHz versus 2,000 MHz
• Game clock: 1,920 MHz versus none listed
• Memory clock: 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 1,024 versus 3,072
• TMUs: 64 versus 192
• ROPs: 64 versus 96
• RT cores: 16 versus 24
• Pixel rate: 166.4 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 166.4 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS
• FP16: 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 92 W versus 175 W
• Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 450 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
• Release date: 2026-07-27 versus 2023-10-09
• Predecessor: Navi III versus Xe Graphics
• Successor: none listed versus Battlemage
• Percentile: 50 versus 87
• Average benchmark score: 0 versus 57,756

Both GPUs share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and dual-slot form factor. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.