AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 9050 and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM. Both entries show zero benchmark scores, zero wins for either part, and no nearest rivals listed. Consequently, the comparative performance data is absent. What remains available for analysis are the raw specification tables, which allow for a structural comparison of the two designs, but any statement about actual measured speed or frame rate cannot be supported by the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 carries a peak FP32 compute rating of 10.65 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM shows 28.83 TFLOPS. That figure places the NVIDIA part at roughly 2.7 times the raw shader throughput of the AMD card, based solely on the listed numbers. The texture rate tells a similar story: the N1X 48SM outputs 900.9 GTexel/s against the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s. The pixel rate, however, favors the AMD part, 166.4 GPixel/s versus 112.6 GPixel/s, which reflects the smaller number of ROPs on the NVIDIA design (48 versus 64).

Memory bandwidth is close between the two. The RX 9050 delivers 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 interface, while the N1X 48SM provides 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus. The NVIDIA part has a large capacity advantage at 128 GB versus 8 GB, but the AMD part offers slightly higher bandwidth per the specification sheet. Neither part has any benchmark entries in the database, so the practical impact of these bandwidth differences is not quantified.

The compute differences extend beyond FP32. Both parts list FP16 at the same figure as FP32 (a 1:1 ratio), meaning the RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP16 and the N1X 48SM delivers 28.83 TFLOPS FP16. The NVIDIA part also includes 192 tensor cores, while the AMD part lists none. Ray tracing hardware differs as well: the RX 9050 has 16 RT cores, and the N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores. No ray tracing benchmark data exists in the database to translate those counts into performance deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM, at 28.83 TFLOPS, is about 2.7 times the AMD Radeon RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS.

Q: How does memory capacity compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA N1X 48SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050, at 288.0 GB/s, slightly exceeds the NVIDIA N1X 48SM's 273.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 achieves 166.4 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA N1X 48SM achieves 112.6 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same PCIe interface?

A: Yes, both list PCIe 5.0 x16 as their bus interface.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the NVIDIA N1X 48SM is the stronger compute device. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput figures are roughly 2.7 times those of the AMD Radeon RX 9050. It also has substantially more shading units (6144 versus 1024), more texture mapping units (384 versus 64), and more RT cores (48 versus 16). The inclusion of 192 tensor cores gives it a dedicated matrix math capability that the AMD part lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 holds advantages in specific fixed-function areas. Its pixel rate is about 48% higher than the NVIDIA part, and its memory bandwidth is slightly higher despite a narrower bus. The AMD card also has more ROPs (64 versus 48). For workloads dominated by pixel output or where bandwidth is the limiting factor, the RX 9050's specification sheet looks more favorable.

The absence of benchmark scores means the verdict rests entirely on specification analysis. The NVIDIA part is a much larger die (382 mm² versus 199 mm²) and draws from a newer architecture generation (Blackwell 2.0 versus RDNA 4.0), though process nodes differ (5 nm versus 4 nm). The AMD part is an active, dual-slot, 92 W discrete card with a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU figure. These are different product categories, and the data reflects that.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon RX 9050 | NVIDIA N1X 48SM |

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

| Chip | Navi 44 | GB20B |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Die Size | 199 mm² | 382 mm² |

| Transistors | 29,700 million | unknown |

| Base Clock | 1330 MHz | 741 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2346 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1920 MHz | null |

| 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 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 64 | 384 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 16 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | null | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 166.4 GPixel/s | 112.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 166.4 GTexel/s | 900.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.65 TFLOPS | 28.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.65 TFLOPS (1:1) | 28.83 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 92 W | unknown |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

| 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 |

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. It belongs to the Navi IV (RX 9000) generation and succeeds the Navi III lineage. The die measures 199 mm² and contains 29,700 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The architecture provides 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. No tensor cores are present. The memory subsystem uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process. It belongs to the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The die measures 382 mm², which is nearly twice the AMD die size, but the transistor count is listed as unknown. The architecture provides 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores. The memory subsystem uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The AMD part has a base clock of 1330 MHz and a boost of 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 1920 MHz. The NVIDIA part has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz, with no game clock listed. The memory clocks also differ: AMD runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA runs at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Form factor separates the two clearly. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is a dual-slot discrete card requiring one 8-pin power connector and a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA N1X 48SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Display outputs also differ: the AMD card provides one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a connections, while the NVIDIA part lists a single HDMI output.

API support is a major architectural differentiator. The AMD part lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs, which aligns with its IGP classification in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 wins in pixel throughput. Its 166.4 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA part's 112.6 GPixel/s by about 48%. It also has a slightly higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s) and a higher boost clock (2600 MHz versus 2346 MHz). For scenarios that rely on rasterization output or memory bandwidth per cycle, the AMD specification sheet provides the advantage. The dual-slot form factor with a dedicated 8-pin connector also suggests it is designed for standalone installation in a desktop system with a 250 W suggested PSU.

The NVIDIA N1X 48SM wins in raw shader compute, texture throughput, and memory capacity. Its FP32 figure of 28.83 TFLOPS is about 2.7 times the AMD part. Its texture rate of 900.9 GTexel/s is more than five times the AMD part's 166.4 GTexel/s. The 128 GB memory capacity dwarfs the 8 GB on the AMD card, and the 256-bit bus width is double the AMD's 128-bit bus, even though the bandwidth ends up slightly lower. The NVIDIA part also has 192 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks, and triple the RT cores (48 versus 16).

Workloads that benefit from massive memory pools, tensor operations, or high texture fill rates align with the NVIDIA part. Workloads that need high pixel fill rates or slightly higher bandwidth align with the AMD part. The NVIDIA part also has an earlier release date (2026-05-31 versus 2026-07-27), but both are listed as Active in production status. No benchmark data exists to confirm which part delivers better real-world results in any specific application.