- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 77,724
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
RX 9050 is a bit of a turd
- Thread starter pendragon1
- Start date
oem in mind move can be hard to understand of course, but this one feel like I am missing something.
It is using the same 18Gbps memory according to what I can find than a 9060 would, it is using the same GPU die, why going with such an aggressive core count cut (50%), at under 200mm on a very mature node, even a ~75% would be quite good yield.
Seem like a waste of a lot of working cores and hard to find GDDR6 memory to a make slower than 2020 RTX 3060 gpu...
There could be some OEM power level demand (100 watt or something) they wanted to it, still feel a 75% enabled downclocked cores would reach it and give you a 7060 nonXT performance at least...
Hard to understand the strategy here...
It is using the same 18Gbps memory according to what I can find than a 9060 would, it is using the same GPU die, why going with such an aggressive core count cut (50%), at under 200mm on a very mature node, even a ~75% would be quite good yield.
Seem like a waste of a lot of working cores and hard to find GDDR6 memory to a make slower than 2020 RTX 3060 gpu...
There could be some OEM power level demand (100 watt or something) they wanted to it, still feel a 75% enabled downclocked cores would reach it and give you a 7060 nonXT performance at least...
Hard to understand the strategy here...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 77,724
ok, sure....
Susquehannock
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,994
Meh ....
Time index 11:20 - "The 9050 Preys on Novice PC Gamers"
View: https://youtu.be/shweR_ghJFw?si=8mn9gQAAwbfGWczU
And here I am looking at AGP cards for my Soltek Qbic box.
Time index 11:20 - "The 9050 Preys on Novice PC Gamers"
View: https://youtu.be/shweR_ghJFw?si=8mn9gQAAwbfGWczU
And here I am looking at AGP cards for my Soltek Qbic box.
I'd be more interested in a 4GB model that pulls less than 75W and can run on slot power than the 8GB retail version. Cheap low power card to make a proc with no integrated video & a board with no ipmi/video work so I can use it as a server. AM4 CPU, X299, Threadripper, etc. But I'm sure they'll want too much $ for it and I'd go hunting for a used 1050 or something instead.
I haven't seen any actual benches of the 9050 8GB yet but it sounds like it's going to get flogged by an ARC B570 or RTX 5050. 4GB? Don't need to see them.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,694
My thinking, somewhat exaggerated. Why? If, and it's a big if, you must have "new" and you can only spend so much, it's a RX 6600 beating (usually) option. So, let's say that RX 6600 1080p gaming is "ok", and for what ever reason you want something "like that", but new, then if you just don't have the budget and for whatever reason you want to pay "AI madness", I think it's an ok card. HUB tests 1080p on mega ultra die die settings. And my guess is that you'll get 1080p enjoyment from the 8GB version of the RX 9050. Note, HUB believe that all 1080p gaming is crap. Total crap. Like you're insane crap. Not sure why they went there, but... there you go. So if you want 8K gaming at ultra mega high end settings with RT ray obliteration, yes, the RX 9050 with .0005 fps is probably not for you. But, I think that would be obvious.
Most people that need a cheap graphics card might do better buying used. That way, you might get 1080p+ (like even 1440p) for a lesser price than an RX 9050 new. But... it won't be new. So, to me, that's the key.
Also, as HUB pointed out these are binned 9060 cards. So.... they take power, while it might not be like a 9060, we'll have to see if other benefits like "low profile" come out. Right now, Nvidia has that locked up, AMD not really a player currently in that space at all (not by any reasonable comparison). However, Steam OS is a thing, and so, you really need a Radeon. We'll see if the power is low enough for a low profile RX 9050 to come out (???). That again, if you must have new, could be another win for the platform.
TLDR: Performs on par with a RX 6600 mostly (1080p), but you can't get that new (presumably, alibaba to the rescue??). Works with Steam OS (we think). Might offer an opportunity for AMD to re-enter the low-profile space, but that's not proven. Avoid the 4GB pre-built variant at all cost.
Most people that need a cheap graphics card might do better buying used. That way, you might get 1080p+ (like even 1440p) for a lesser price than an RX 9050 new. But... it won't be new. So, to me, that's the key.
Also, as HUB pointed out these are binned 9060 cards. So.... they take power, while it might not be like a 9060, we'll have to see if other benefits like "low profile" come out. Right now, Nvidia has that locked up, AMD not really a player currently in that space at all (not by any reasonable comparison). However, Steam OS is a thing, and so, you really need a Radeon. We'll see if the power is low enough for a low profile RX 9050 to come out (???). That again, if you must have new, could be another win for the platform.
TLDR: Performs on par with a RX 6600 mostly (1080p), but you can't get that new (presumably, alibaba to the rescue??). Works with Steam OS (we think). Might offer an opportunity for AMD to re-enter the low-profile space, but that's not proven. Avoid the 4GB pre-built variant at all cost.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 14,199
In case anyone missed it, the chart in the OP is cost per frame, lower being "better." The card might actually perform differently than you think, depending on how your brain decided to interpret that chart.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 77,724
was this not clear enough?!
people can skip to the sections in the vid. i thought this was most relevant, its overpriced and underperforms.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7,474
These are the 9060(XT) dies that didn't make the cut already. They had to get a number they could get max yield out of.
I just can't take HUB seriously for testing this at 1080p ultra. Yes, the card costs too much and it sucks overall with the 4gb being likely far worse and meant for limited OEM screw jobs at a lower price but no one that is stuck at this level of performance should run this card at ultra settings for most of the games they tested. Rivals is just insane especially since AMD has had some issues with that game. Rivals isn't exactly well optimized at times depending on patch, gpu/brand driver versions or UE5 sillyness. Drop most settings to high and toss on dlss/fsr and the game looks fine and runs decent enough at 1080p. Tim's take on the 6500 a week or two ago was just as silly. Like test the new AC Blackflag fine, but also show me how the original runs on that 6500 with 4 or 8gb of ram.
All these ultra tests tell me that yes, 1080p and 1440p suck on these cards and we're not moving forward. I'm at ten years now on being correct that jumping to 1440p/2k or 4k is not worth the cash most of the time.
All these ultra tests tell me that yes, 1080p and 1440p suck on these cards and we're not moving forward. I'm at ten years now on being correct that jumping to 1440p/2k or 4k is not worth the cash most of the time.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2011
- Messages
- 7,474
The problem is the price. Its simply not a $300 card even in the current market. HUB being lying turds is secondary, they've been at it for years.
Running on max settings without ray tracing seems to be the industry standard. I suspect part of the reason is they don't want to have to retest every comparison card for every review. So just use a standard platform and run everything on ultra. A really good review would I suppose still include the usual ultra tests, but I'd also like to see a breakdown of what settings are playable for the card being reviewed, along with some sort of comparison to the other cards. Run all of them at the target card's playable settings or do a [H]ard|OCP style max playable settings comparison.
Running everything on ultra is turning into more and more of a problem and the drampocalypse is making it even worse. The gaming industry was headed for an 8GB minimum before dram prices spiked, and a lot of upcoming titles are probably too far along in development to change that. The problem there is 8GB is likely not enough to run most minimum 8GB titles on ultra so they'll be spilling over into system ram and run horribly slowly. Everything on ultra for the 9050 8GB isn't really any worse than doing the same to a 5060Ti. You can still reasonably judge how slow it is compared to the competition. The 4GB version will break that model. With a mere 4GB, a proper review is more about "can it run the game"? Meaning can it run it at all. I have a few where the answer will be a hard no.
yes that what i mean by same gpu die.... 50% for such a small for a gpu chip on such an old and mature node seem really aggressive, specially with how precious spending 8GB of semi-descent gddr6 is at the moment.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but a card that can't handle 1080p ultra that costs $280 in 2026 has no right to exist, especially when the 9060xt 8GB launched at $300, yielding like a 70%-75% boost in performance for the price of a Starbucks latte. HUB is perfectly justified in testing this at 1080p ultra to highlight how stupid this is. AMD should be embarrassed for wasting perfectly good VRAM, at a time of a supply crisis, in order to launch this worthless crap.