AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA N1X 40SM Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 and the NVIDIA N1X 40SM occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, despite both being active products in the database. The RX 9050 is a discrete, dual-slot add-in board built on AMD's RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the N1X 40SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) on NVIDIA's Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The recorded data shows two fundamentally different design philosophies, with the RX 9050 prioritizing a compact, power-conscious footprint for conventional graphics workloads, and the N1X 40SM leveraging a massive unified memory pool and high shader count for compute-heavy scenarios. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores or nearest rival entries in the database, so the analysis below relies strictly on the architectural specifications and measured capabilities listed for each product.

Where Each One Wins

The primary split in capabilities comes down to raw compute throughput versus memory capacity and pixel output. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers a significantly higher FP32 performance of 24.02 TFLOPS, which is 2.26 times the RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS. This gives the N1X 40SM a clear advantage in any workload that scales with floating-point math, such as general-purpose GPU compute, simulation, or large-scale data processing. Its FP16 performance is also 24.02 TFLOPS, maintaining a 1:1 ratio, which means it can handle half-precision workloads at the same rate as single-precision without a dedicated boost path. The RX 9050 also offers FP16 at 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1), so the relative gap remains identical in both precisions.

The RX 9050 wins decisively in rasterization throughput. Its pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s, which is 1.77 times higher than the N1X 40SM's 93.84 GPixel/s, despite the NVIDIA part having far more shading units. This suggests the RX 9050's 64 ROPs are better optimized for fill-rate-bound scenes. The texture rate tells a different story: the N1X 40SM reaches 750.7 GTexel/s, which is 4.51 times the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s, thanks to its 320 texture mapping units. The N1X 40SM also leads in memory capacity with 128 GB of LPDDR5X, a 16-fold increase over the RX 9050's 8 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 9050 has a modest bandwidth advantage at 288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. The RX 9050 wins on bandwidth efficiency, but the N1X 40SM wins on total memory volume and texture throughput. The RX 9050 is the choice for traditional display rendering, while the N1X 40SM is positioned for compute and texture-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes. The RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the N1X 40SM uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. The die sizes reflect this divergence: Navi 44 measures 199 mm² with 29,700 million transistors, giving a density of 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GB20B die is 382 mm², with transistor count listed as unknown, so no density figure is recorded. The RX 9050 is roughly half the die area, which aligns with its lower power envelope and smaller physical footprint.

The RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. It has no tensor cores listed, meaning all compute is handled by the standard shader array. The N1X 40SM uses Blackwell 2.0 with 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 40 ROPs, 40 ray tracing cores, and 160 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has five times the shading units, five times the TMUs, 2.5 times the ray tracing cores, and a dedicated tensor core array that the AMD card lacks. The ROP count is the exception, with the RX 9050 holding a 64 to 40 advantage.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The N1X 40SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, running at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed. The bus width is double on the NVIDIA part, but the lower effective clock reduces the theoretical bandwidth to 273.2 GB/s, which is 14.8 GB/s below the AMD card. The API support is a major differentiator: the RX 9050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the N1X 40SM lists N/A for all three APIs. This indicates the NVIDIA IGP is not positioned for standard gaming or workstation graphics APIs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark entries for either product, and no head-to-head benchmark results are stored. The nearest rivals fields are empty, and both parts sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database. The wins counters are zero for both sides, meaning the database has not generated any comparative performance metrics. The analysis must therefore rely on the specification-derived rates and throughput figures.

The largest single advantage for the N1X 40SM is in texture throughput, where 750.7 GTexel/s is 584.3 GTexel/s higher than the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s. This is a 4.51x lead. The FP32 advantage is also substantial: 24.02 TFLOPS versus 10.65 TFLOPS is a 13.37 TFLOPS gap, or 2.26x. The shading unit count supports this, with 5120 versus 1024 being a 5x difference. The RX 9050's strongest counter is pixel rate, where 166.4 GPixel/s exceeds 93.84 GPixel/s by 72.56 GPixel/s, a 1.77x lead. The ROP count of 64 versus 40 explains this, as does the RX 9050's higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 2346 MHz.

Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, a game clock of 1920 MHz, and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The N1X 40SM has a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 9050's base clock is 589 MHz higher, and its boost clock is 254 MHz higher. The memory clock also favors AMD: 2250 MHz versus 1067 MHz, a difference of 1183 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the N1X 40SM still achieves higher overall compute because of its larger shader array.

The power and physical characteristics are not directly comparable. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The N1X 40SM has an unknown TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, consistent with its IGP classification. The RX 9050 is dual-slot with a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the N1X 40SM is IGP form factor with the same PCIe 5.0 x16 interface. Display outputs differ: the RX 9050 has 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a, while the N1X 40SM has only 1x HDMI.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 9050 is designed for conventional graphics rendering with modern API support, a compact 199 mm² die, and a 92 W power envelope. Its 166.4 GPixel/s pixel rate, 64 ROPs, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it the appropriate choice for standard display workloads and games that rely on rasterization. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory is sufficient for typical frame buffers, and the 288.0 GB/s bandwidth edges out the NVIDIA part.

The NVIDIA N1X 40SM is a different class of product. Its 128 GB unified memory pool, 5120 shading units, 160 tensor cores, and 24.02 TFLOPS of FP32 compute position it for workloads that require large in-memory datasets and massive parallel throughput. The lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support in the database suggests it is not intended for traditional graphics APIs, and its IGP form factor with no power connectors indicates it is embedded or integrated into a larger system. The 382 mm² die size and 5 nm process reflect a larger, more complex chip.

Neither part has recorded benchmark scores, so the verdict rests on the specification sheet. The RX 9050 is the only one of the two with a complete set of graphics APIs and a standard power delivery system, making it the functional GPU for gaming and general display output. The N1X 40SM is the compute specialist, offering 2.26x the FP32 throughput and 16x the memory, but with no API support and no discrete power or cooling requirements. Users needing rasterization should select the RX 9050; users needing raw compute and memory capacity should select the N1X 40SM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM delivers 24.02 TFLOPS, which is 2.26 times the AMD Radeon RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 has a pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s, which is 1.77 times higher than the NVIDIA N1X 40SM's 93.84 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6, a 16-fold difference.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 40SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan in the database.

Q: How do the texture rates compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 40SM reaches 750.7 GTexel/s, which is 4.51 times the AMD Radeon RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the process nodes?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA N1X 40SM uses a 5 nm TSMC process.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 9050 | NVIDIA N1X 40SM |

|-------|--------------------|------------------|

| Chip | Navi 44 | GB20B |

| Architecture | RDNA 4.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | 199 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | unknown |

| Transistor Density | 149.2M / mm² | null |

| Base Clock | 1330 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 128 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 273.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 5120 |

| TMUs | 64 | 320 |

| ROPs | 64 | 40 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 40 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 160 |

| Pixel Rate | 166.4 GPixel/s | 93.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 750.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.65 TFLOPS | 24.02 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) | 24.02 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 92 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a | 1x HDMI |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2026-07-27 | 2026-05-31 |

| Production Status | Active | Active |