AMD Radeon RX 9050 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a fundamental split between these two parts. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is built for raster performance per clock, with a boost clock of 2600 MHz and a game clock of 1920 MHz. That clock advantage, combined with a 128-bit GDDR6 memory interface delivering 288.0 GB/s, positions it as a discrete graphics solution. The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface providing 273.2 GB/s. The N1 16SM carries 128 GB of memory, a figure that dwarfs the RX 9050's 8 GB.

In raw throughput, the RX 9050 leads in FP32 compute with 10.65 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS for the N1 16SM. That is a 10.8% advantage in peak floating-point work. The RX 9050 also leads in pixel throughput, delivering 166.4 GPixel/s against 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM. That is nearly three times the pixel fill rate. These figures indicate the RX 9050 wins in scenarios dominated by pixel shading and traditional rasterization.

The N1 16SM wins where texture throughput and memory capacity matter. Its texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s exceeds the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s by roughly 80%. With 128 TMUs versus 64, the N1 16SM has double the texture unit count. The N1 16SM also has 2048 shading units, twice the RX 9050's 1024, and 64 tensor cores versus none on the AMD part. For workloads that scale with shading unit count or require tensor operations, the N1 16SM holds the edge.

Architecture Differences

The RX 9050 uses the Navi 44 chip built on RDNA 4.0 architecture, while the N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on Blackwell 2.0. The process nodes differ: TSMC 4 nm for AMD versus TSMC 5 nm for NVIDIA. The RX 9050 packs 29,700 million transistors into a 199 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 149.2M per mm². The N1 16SM has a larger die at 382 mm², but its transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The RX 9050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus. Bandwidth is close, 288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, but the capacity difference is 16-fold. The RX 9050 has 16 RT cores, matching the N1 16SM's 16 RT cores, but the N1 16SM adds 64 tensor cores. The RX 9050 has 64 ROPs, while the N1 16SM has only 24. That ROP disparity explains the large pixel rate gap.

API support differs completely. The RX 9050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A. The RX 9050 is a dual-slot card with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The N1 16SM is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. Display outputs also differ: the RX 9050 offers one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a outputs, while the N1 16SM has a single HDMI output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct benchmark scores are recorded in the database for either part. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and both parts show an average benchmark score of zero. However, the specification data allows for direct comparisons of peak theoretical rates.

The RX 9050 leads in pixel rate by a wide margin. At 166.4 GPixel/s, it is 2.96 times the N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. That difference stems from the RX 9050's 64 ROPs against 24. In FP32 compute, the RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS beats 9.609 TFLOPS, a 10.8% advantage. FP16 performance is identical to FP32 on both parts, at 10.65 TFLOPS and 9.609 TFLOPS respectively.

The N1 16SM strikes back in texture rate. Its 300.3 GTexel/s is 1.80 times the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s. The N1 16SM also leads in shading unit count, 2048 versus 1024, and in TMU count, 128 versus 64. Memory bandwidth favors the RX 9050 slightly, 288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s, a 5.4% margin. Memory capacity heavily favors the N1 16SM at 128 GB versus 8 GB.

Clock speeds tell a clear story. The RX 9050 has a base clock of 1330 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The N1 16SM has a base of 741 MHz and a boost of 2346 MHz. The RX 9050's boost is 10.8% higher. The RX 9050 also has a game clock of 1920 MHz, a figure the N1 16SM lacks entirely. Memory clocks differ as well: the RX 9050 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Specification Differences

The two parts differ in nearly every measured specification. Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm. Die size: 199 mm² versus 382 mm². Transistors: 29,700 million versus unknown. Memory size: 8 GB versus 128 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR5X. Bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s.

Shading units: 1024 versus 2048. TMUs: 64 versus 128. ROPs: 64 versus 24. RT cores: 16 versus 16 (tied). Tensor cores: none versus 64. Pixel rate: 166.4 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 166.4 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 10.65 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16: 10.65 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS.

Base clock: 1330 MHz versus 741 MHz. Boost clock: 2600 MHz versus 2346 MHz. Game clock: 1920 MHz versus not applicable. Memory clock: 2250 MHz versus 1067 MHz. TDP: 92 W versus unknown. Slot width: dual-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus not listed.

Bus interface is identical: PCIe 5.0 x16 on both. Display outputs differ: 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a versus 1x HDMI. API support differs entirely: DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4 versus N/A for all three. Release dates differ: the RX 9050 released later (2026-07-27) than the N1 16SM (2026-05-31). Both are marked as Active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which part has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050, with 10.65 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA N1 16SM, a 10.8% advantage.

Q: How does memory capacity compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has 8 GB of GDDR6. That is a 16-fold difference in capacity.

Q: Which part has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, double the AMD Radeon RX 9050's 1024.

Q: Do both parts have the same number of ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 9050 and the NVIDIA N1 16SM have 16 RT cores.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9050 delivers 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Which part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 9050 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists DirectX as N/A.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear division of roles. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 is the stronger choice for pixel-bound raster workloads. Its pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s is nearly triple the N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. Its FP32 output of 10.65 TFLOPS exceeds the N1 16SM's 9.609 TFLOPS. Its boost clock of 2600 MHz outpaces the N1 16SM's 2346 MHz. The RX 9050 also carries full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it suitable for conventional graphics applications.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is the better fit for texture-heavy or compute-heavy workloads that can use its larger resource pools. It has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 tensor cores. Its texture rate of 300.3 GTexel/s is 80% higher than the RX 9050's. Its 128 GB memory capacity is unmatched by the RX 9050's 8 GB. The N1 16SM operates as an IGP with no power connectors, while the RX 9050 requires a dual-slot card with an 8-pin connector and a 250 W suggested PSU.

For users selecting a discrete GPU with a conventional power envelope and modern graphics API support, the RX 9050 is the data-backed option. For users needing massive memory capacity, high texture throughput, or tensor core availability in an integrated package, the N1 16SM is the data-backed option. Both parts sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, and neither has recorded benchmark scores or rival comparisons. The decision rests on whether pixel rate and API compatibility outweigh shading unit count and memory size.