AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA RTX A400

The database places these two cards far apart in performance class. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 lands at the 35th percentile. The RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, whereas the RTX A400 has a full set of nine measurements, including an average benchmark score of 6078. The RTX A400’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6049 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (1% ahead). The RX 9050 has no nearest rivals listed, leaving direct numerical comparison impossible, but the specification gap between the two is substantial across nearly every measured hardware metric.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database, so the comparison must rely on recorded performance data for the RTX A400 and the hardware capabilities of the RX 9050. The RTX A400’s strongest recorded result is the Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844, with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22237 close behind. In Passmark tests, the RTX A400 delivers a DirectX 9 score of 87, DirectX 11 score of 37, DirectX 10 score of 32, and DirectX 12 score of 27. Its Passmark G3D score is 5983, while the G2D score reaches 899, and the GPU compute score is 2557.

The RX 9050 has no benchmark scores recorded, but its theoretical throughput figures indicate a much higher ceiling. The RX 9050 computes 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400. That is a ratio of roughly 3.9 to 1 in raw floating-point throughput. Pixel throughput shows an even larger gap: the RX 9050 achieves 166.4 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400, a factor of about 5.9. Texture rate for the RX 9050 is 166.4 GTexel/s, while the RTX A400 manages 42.29 GTexel/s, roughly 3.9 times lower.

Memory bandwidth follows the same pattern. The RX 9050 delivers 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the RTX A400 provides 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. The RX 9050’s memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), compared to 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RTX A400. The RX 9050 also doubles the frame buffer, with 8 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR6.

The RTX A400’s recorded scores place it in a specific competitive band. Its average benchmark score of 6078 sits within 1% of all four listed nearest rivals, confirming that it performs at the level of entry-level mobile and older workstation parts. The RX 9050, by contrast, carries specifications that align with a much faster segment of the database, even without recorded scores to confirm placement.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins in the categories where the database has actual measurements. It has nine recorded benchmark scores across Geekbench and Passmark suites, giving it a verified performance profile. Its best results come from compute-oriented workloads: Geekbench OpenCL at 22844 and Geekbench Vulkan at 22237. These scores demonstrate that the RTX A400 handles general-purpose GPU compute tasks competently relative to its class. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983 and GPU compute score of 2557 further support this position. The card’s nearest rivals all score within a narrow band (6019 to 6117), which indicates that the RTX A400 is tightly grouped with other low-end GPUs rather than standing out.

The RX 9050 wins on every major hardware specification that determines raw graphics and compute capability. Its FP32 throughput of 10.65 TFLOPS is 3.9 times the RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s is 5.9 times higher. Its texture rate of 166.4 GTexel/s is 3.9 times higher. Memory bandwidth is 3.0 times higher at 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The RX 9050 also has more execution resources: 1024 shading units versus 768, 64 texture mapping units versus 24, 64 ROPs versus 16, and 16 ray tracing cores versus 6.

The RTX A400 has one resource advantage: 24 tensor cores, while the RX 9050 lists none. That gives the RTX A400 a dedicated path for tensor-based workloads, though the RX 9050’s higher FP32 rate may compensate in general compute. The RTX A400 also draws less power at 50 W versus 92 W, and it is a single-slot card versus dual-slot for the RX 9050. The RTX A400 requires no power connectors, while the RX 9050 needs one 8-pin connector.

For gaming and rendering workloads, the RX 9050’s higher pixel throughput, texture throughput, and memory bandwidth point to clear advantages in fill-rate-bound scenes and high-resolution rendering. The RTX A400’s strengths lie in its verified compute scores, lower power envelope, and compact single-slot form factor.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 8 nm. Transistor counts reflect this: the RX 9050 packs 29,700 million transistors on a 199 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 149.2 million per mm². The RTX A400 has 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 43.5 million per mm². The die sizes are nearly identical, but the RX 9050 fits over three times more transistors into the same area.

The RX 9050 belongs to the Navi IV generation (RX 9000 series), with a predecessor of Navi III and no successor listed. The RTX A400 belongs to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation, with a predecessor of Quadro Turing and a successor of Workstation Ada. The RX 9050 uses a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR6 memory, while the RTX A400 uses a 64-bit bus with GDDR6 memory. Clock behavior also differs: 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 A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz, with no game clock listed.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 9050 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a outputs. The RTX A400 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W, a dual-slot design, and one 8-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, a single-slot design, and no power connectors. Both list a suggested PSU of 250 W.

The RTX A400 is physically compact at 163 mm length and 69 mm height. The RX 9050 has no dimensions recorded. The RTX A400’s release date is 2024-04-15, while the RX 9050’s is 2026-07-27. Both are listed as active in production.

FAQ

Q: How does the raw compute power of the RX 9050 compare to the RTX A400?

A: The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS FP32, which is 3.9 times the RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same 1:1 ratio for both cards.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The RX 9050 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 9050’s memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the RTX A400’s is 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 9050 has 1024 shading units and 16 ray tracing cores. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units and 6 ray tracing cores. The RTX A400 does have 24 tensor cores, while the RX 9050 lists none.

Q: What do the RTX A400’s benchmark scores indicate about its performance class?

A: Its average benchmark score is 6078, with nearest rivals scoring between 6019 and 6117. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 22844 and Vulkan score is 22237. These place it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the power and cooling requirements for each card?

A: The RX 9050 has a 92 W TDP, uses a dual-slot design, and requires one 8-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, uses a single-slot design, and requires no power connectors. Both list a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The RX 9050 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the RTX A400 is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The RX 9050’s transistor density is 149.2 million per mm², compared to 43.5 million per mm² for the RTX A400.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly all recorded hardware fields. The RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip with RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip with Ampere architecture. The RX 9050 is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC; the RTX A400 uses an 8 nm process at Samsung. Transistor counts are 29,700 million for the RX 9050 versus 8,700 million for the RTX A400. Die sizes are 199 mm² for the RX 9050 and 200 mm² for the RTX A400. Transistor density is 149.2 million per mm² for the RX 9050 and 43.5 million per mm² for the RTX A400.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz, boost of 2600 MHz, and game clock of 1920 MHz. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and boost of 1762 MHz, with no game clock. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 9050 and 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RTX A400. Memory size is 8 GB for the RX 9050 versus 4 GB for the RTX A400. Bus widths are 128 bit and 64 bit, respectively. Bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Execution resources differ: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 16 RT cores for the RX 9050; 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 6 RT cores for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 has 24 tensor cores, while the RX 9050 has none. Pixel rate is 166.4 GPixel/s for the RX 9050 and 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400. Texture rate is 166.4 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 are 10.65 TFLOPS for the RX 9050 and 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400.

Power and physical design differ. The RX 9050 has a 92 W TDP, dual-slot width, and one 8-pin power connector. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, single-slot width, and no power connectors. Both share a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a for the RX 9050, and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX A400. The RTX A400 has dimensions of 163 mm length and 69 mm height; the RX 9050 has none recorded. Release dates are 2026-07-27 for the RX 9050 and 2024-04-15 for the RTX A400.