AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 9050 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 are two very different graphics cards aimed at different segments of the market. The RX 9050 is a modern, high-performance part from AMD’s Radeon RX 9000 series, built on a 4 nm process, while the RTX 4010 is an entry-level NVIDIA card from the GeForce 40-series, built on an older 8 nm process. The benchmark data, while limited to a single recorded test for the RTX 4010, still provides a clear picture of their relative performance classes, and the architectural specifications further separate them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark score for the RTX 4010: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 2893 points. This score places the RTX 4010 at the 18th percentile of all GPUs in the database. In contrast, the RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0. The percentile for the RX 9050 is 50, which is the median for all GPUs, but this is based on no actual test data. The only concrete comparison available is the RTX 4010’s score versus its nearest rivals, which does not include the RX 9050.

Looking at the RTX 4010’s nearest rivals, its 2893 score is nearly identical to several other cards. It is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 2907. It is 0.6% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4000 Blackwell SFF, which scores 2910, and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 2913. The RTX 4010 is also 1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P600, which scores 2923. This clustering suggests that the RTX 4010 performs at a level comparable to these other cards in this specific test, despite being a much lower-tier product in terms of its specifications. The deltas are all negative, meaning the RTX 4010 is the slowest of this group, but the differences are small, under one percent in most cases.

Since the RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores, there are no direct wins for either card in the head-to-head data. The wins counter shows 0 for both items. What can be stated is that the RX 9050 is designed for a much higher performance tier, based on its architecture, memory, and compute resources, while the RTX 4010 is a low-power, entry-level solution. The absence of RX 9050 benchmark data means a direct numerical comparison is impossible from the database alone. The recorded data indicates that the RTX 4010 is a functional, if modest, performer that sits near the bottom of the performance distribution, while the RX 9050, with no scores, cannot be numerically ranked against it.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the RTX 4010 wins in the only measurable category: it has a recorded benchmark score, while the RX 9050 has none. The RTX 4010’s 2893 points in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is a concrete data point. It also wins in terms of power efficiency, with a TDP of 50 W compared to the RX 9050’s 92 W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the RX 9050 needs a single 8-pin connector. For systems with very limited power budgets or small form factors, the RTX 4010’s single-slot design and lower power draw are clear advantages.

The RX 9050, on the other hand, wins in every raw performance specification. Its FP32 compute is 10.65 TFLOPS versus the RTX 4010’s 2.706 TFLOPS, which is a factor of nearly four. The RX 9050 has a memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, three times the RTX 4010’s 96.00 GB/s. Its pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s, while the RTX 4010 manages only 28.19 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. These figures indicate that the RX 9050 is designed for demanding gaming and compute workloads, while the RTX 4010 is suited for basic display output and light 3D tasks. The RX 9050 also has 8 GB of memory versus 4 GB, which is a critical advantage for modern games and applications that exceed 4 GB of VRAM usage.

In a practical sense, the RX 9050 wins in gaming scenarios that require high frame rates at high resolutions, as its shading units, texture units, and ROPs are all significantly more numerous. The RTX 4010 wins in scenarios where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints. Its 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in a wide range of systems, including those with weak power supplies. The RX 9050, with a suggested PSU of 250 W, requires a more substantial power supply and a dual-slot space in the chassis.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip, based on the RDNA 4.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 29,700 million transistors on a die size of 199 mm², giving a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4010 uses the GA107 chip, based on the older Ampere architecture, and is fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It has only 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The difference in process technology is stark: the RX 9050 packs over three times as many transistors into a slightly smaller die.

The memory subsystems are also very different. The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), providing only 96.00 GB/s. The RX 9050’s bandwidth advantage is a direct result of the wider bus and faster memory clock.

In terms of compute resources, the RX 9050 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). It also has 16 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4010 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The RX 9050 has no tensor cores listed, while the RTX 4010 has dedicated tensor cores for AI workloads. The RX 9050’s compute rates are far higher: FP32 and FP16 are both 10.65 TFLOPS, while the RTX 4010 achieves 2.706 TFLOPS in both. The pixel and texture rates reflect these differences: 166.4 GPixel/s and 166.4 GTexel/s for the RX 9050, versus 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX 4010.

Clock speeds also differ. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a boost clock of 2600 MHz, and a game clock of 1920 MHz. The RTX 4010 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, with no game clock specified. Despite a lower base clock, the RX 9050’s boost clock is much higher, and its game clock is still above the RTX 4010’s boost clock. The bus interface differs as well: the RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX 4010 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are different: the RX 9050 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the RTX 4010 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance difference in the only recorded benchmark?

A: The RTX 4010 scores 2893 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. The RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so no direct numerical comparison exists.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RTX 4010 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RTX 4010 has a TDP of 50 W and requires no power connectors. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W and requires one 8-pin power connector. Both cards have a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The RX 9050 has 29,700 million transistors, while the RTX 4010 has 8,700 million transistors.

Q: What are their process nodes?

A: The RX 9050 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX 4010 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung.

Q: Does the RTX 4010 have any features the RX 9050 lacks?

A: Yes, the RTX 4010 has 24 tensor cores for AI acceleration, while the RX 9050 has no tensor cores listed. The RX 9050 has more ray tracing cores (16 versus 6).

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two cards into different performance tiers. The RX 9050 is a substantially more powerful GPU in every measurable specification: it has four times the FP32 compute, three times the memory bandwidth, and a much higher pixel and texture rate. Its 8 GB of memory makes it suitable for modern gaming, while the RTX 4010’s 4 GB is likely insufficient for many current titles. The RTX 4010’s only recorded benchmark score of 2893 places it at the 18th percentile, indicating it is a low-end performer. The RX 9050, with no recorded scores, cannot be ranked, but its specifications suggest it would score far higher.

For a user building a gaming PC or a workstation that needs graphics performance, the RX 9050 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its higher TDP of 92 W is still modest, and its dual-slot cooler is a standard size. The RTX 4010 is for a different use case: a low-profile, single-slot card with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, suitable for basic display output, office tasks, or as a secondary GPU in a system with a weak power supply. Its performance, as measured by the 2893 score, is close to other cards like the RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB, but those cards have much higher power draws and are not directly comparable in terms of intended use.

The choice depends on the workload. The RX 9050 is designed for real rendering and compute work. The RTX 4010 is designed for minimal power draw and physical footprint. The database shows that the RX 9050 is a modern, high-capability part, while the RTX 4010 is an older, low-end part with a specific niche. Users who need performance should choose the RX 9050. Users who need a low-power, small-form-factor card should choose the RTX 4010.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based on the recorded data.

• Manufacturer: AMD for the RX 9050, NVIDIA for the RTX 4010.
• Chip: Navi 44 for the RX 9050, GA107 for the RTX 4010.
• Architecture: RDNA 4.0 for the RX 9050, Ampere for the RTX 4010.
• Process Node: 4 nm for the RX 9050, 8 nm for the RTX 4010.
• Foundry: TSMC for the RX 9050, Samsung for the RTX 4010.
• Transistors: 29,700 million for the RX 9050, 8,700 million for the RTX 4010.
• Die Size: 199 mm² for the RX 9050, 200 mm² for the RTX 4010.
• Transistor Density: 149.2M / mm² for the RX 9050, 43.5M / mm² for the RTX 4010.
• Base Clock: 1330 MHz for the RX 9050, 1417 MHz for the RTX 4010.
• Boost Clock: 2600 MHz for the RX 9050, 1762 MHz for the RTX 4010.
• Game Clock: 1920 MHz for the RX 9050, not specified for the RTX 4010.
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 9050, 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RTX 4010.
• Memory Size: 8 GB for the RX 9050, 4 GB for the RTX 4010.
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit for the RX 9050, 64 bit for the RTX 4010.
• Memory Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s for the RX 9050, 96.00 GB/s for the RTX 4010.
• Shading Units: 1024 for the RX 9050, 768 for the RTX 4010.
• TMUs: 64 for the RX 9050, 24 for the RTX 4010.
• ROPs: 64 for the RX 9050, 16 for the RTX 4010.
• RT Cores: 16 for the RX 9050, 6 for the RTX 4010.
• Tensor Cores: Not specified for the RX 9050, 24 for the RTX 4010.
• Pixel Rate: 166.4 GPixel/s for the RX 9050, 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX 4010.
• Texture Rate: 166.4 GTexel/s for the RX 9050, 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX 4010.
• FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS for the RX 9050, 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX 4010.
• FP16: 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RX 9050, 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RTX 4010.
• TDP: 92 W for the RX 9050, 50 W for the RTX 4010.
• Slot Width: Dual-slot for the RX 9050, Single-slot for the RTX 4010.
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin for the RX 9050, None for the RTX 4010.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RX 9050, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX 4010.
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a for the RX 9050, 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX 4010.
• Release Date: 2026-07-27 for the RX 9050, 2024-04-15 for the RTX 4010.
• Predecessor: Navi III for the RX 9050, GeForce 30 for the RTX 4010.
• Successor: Not specified for the RX 9050, GeForce 50 for the RTX 4010.
• Percentile Vs All GPUs: 50 for the RX 9050, 18 for the RTX 4010.
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 for the RX 9050, 2893 for the RTX 4010.