4GB of VRAM in 2026 is crazy. But with RAM prices it is not so crazy. The last time they launched one with 4GB VRAM was CES 2022 with the Radeon RX 6500 XT.

Ah yes, Asrock Challenger, here to challenge our memories of 2014.

4GB card would be absolute no go at this point.

The jump from (assumingly) a $200 GPU to a $300 one is pretty insane.

4GB VRAM in 2026 is just stupid; even 8GB is struggling these days. Might be useful if you drop to 800×600.

This is painful, reminds me of RX 6400.

Finally a worthy successor to the GT1030 2GB (ddr3)

I would say $220 for the 8GB and $199 for the 4GB model. And yes, those prices are ridiculously bad. Then again we are reading that Nvidia is increasing prices for the third time and up to 30% in a year, so.....
AMD is just trying to build cheaper models for OEMs. They don't really care if those models make sense today for everybody, as long as it is something that OEMs want. As for consumers, 99 out of 100 will not know that they need 8GB and a fast enough GPU as minimal for new games, 1 out of 100 will know that for their needs, like eSports for example, even 4GB is enough if it comes at the right price.

Not even single slot?

4 gb vram. Yeah no thanks. My rtx 4060 8 gb all ready struggles with to low vram in modern aaa titles.

What next? Sub-1GB?

Huh, I wonder why this thing has an 8-pin. Surely this card won't draw anything north of 100W? Or is this ASRock being ASRock?

You should blame Mr. Moore and its "law" that died, so that AMD can't make new GPUs whatsoever.... :banghead:

Hm, despite all of your criticisms, we didn't have a launch like this for a while.
One that rivals the product placement of the old GeForce 8400 GS or the RX 6400: Just barely better than an IGP, not enough to do anything other than to test a PCI-e slot.
Now, if this was sub-$100 or $150 but passivel, sure.
At +$200? No.

AMD back again with more 4gb cards. By gamers, for gamers.

Are you sure about the 9050 8GB card?
The linked specs image shows a 9060 8GB, and the source is 404...



4GB over a 64-bit bus, and no information regarding how many PCIe lanes.
Reminds me too much of the RX 6500 :fear:

_JP_One that rivals the product placement of the old GeForce 8400 GS or the RX 6400: Just barely better than an IGP, not enough to do anything other than to test a PCI-e slot.

If only it was either slot-powered or half-height/single-slot, it could be a niche card, sure. With a PEG connector and normal size, though?

This timeline gets uglier by the day with no signs of stopping anytime soon.

First 4GB card was long time ago backin 2008. Yes was professional card but...
PS. Few months earlier was released 16GB graphics a way times more expensive: Tesla S1070/1075. Yes technically 4x4GB but...

I knew I could technically still call my retro 1050 Ti gaming box current and up to date. Even runs Cyberpunk.

Let3r4GB of VRAM in 2026 is crazy. But with RAM prices it is not so crazy. The last time they launched one with 4GB VRAM was CES 2022 with the Radeon RX 6500 XT.

It's crazy, no matter what side to look at this. RAM prices do not justify severe impairment of the already anemic GPU and overall card's potential.
Normally, I would agree, that with the correct price (of right of $100-$150), it has a right to exist. It could be used as an filler card with video outputs, for a workstation, server, NAS, or some very tiny retro/indie gaming PC and office work. But iGPU in any Zen4 and 5, already exists. And it has to be one slot, or even half-slot, in order to fit and justify it's performance.

The main reason, why such miserable amounts on the video cards are utterly unacceptable, is that it's not a CPU with SODIMM or DIMM. It's impossible, to add, swap the RAM, to any aftermarket one. And this card, is certainly would be too much PITA to mod, due to the seems the sh*ttiest grade PCB that makes re-balling near impossible (disposable/single-use). The "premium" cards, of higher tiers, are much more suitable, and would likely not loose the integrity, after couple of RAM/GPU and other SMDs change.

So short answer- no, it's still completely crazy.

lambdaThis is painful, reminds me of RX 6400.

RX6400 should have not exist at all as a dGPU. It lacked any media conversion, whatsoever. This seems (supposedly) to be an ordinary RDNA4 with lesser CU amounts. so it's (speculatively) a full sufficient card.

LabRat 891Not even single slot?

Exactly! Absolutely no excuse, for this card to require such a huge coolers. Unless it's factory clocked beyond the levels of sanity. But theт its efficiency (main point) becomes moot.

ARFYou should blame Mr. Moore and its "law" that died, so that AMD can't make new GPUs whatsoever.... :banghead:

You should blame this guy and his Hyperscammers AI-thug buddies

NostrasHuh, I wonder why this thing has an 8-pin. Surely this card won't draw anything north of 100W? Or is this ASRock being ASRock?

Or, since it needed external power, they used the 8 pin because all their other cards use 1 or 2 8 pins, so they had them available already and could save the $$$ of supplying 6 pins for only 1 card.

OK, according to Screenshots over at VideoCardz...
The RX 9050 8GB is real... but has a 128-bit bus, compared to a 64-bit bus on the RX 9050 4GB model.
That is really scummy of AMD, as the 4GB version will perform worse, even if you stay within the 4GB VRAM limit :shadedshu:

4GB VRAM? very dissapointing AMD

outlw6669OK, according to Screenshots over at VideoCardz...
The RX 9050 8GB is real... but has a 128-bit bus, compared to a 64-bit bus on the RX 9050 4GB model.
That is really scummy of AMD, as the 4GB version will perform worse, even if you stay within the 4GB VRAM limit :shadedshu:

I can't decide what is worse between these and the 1060-3G/1060-6G bs.

The 1060's had the same bus, but the 3GB had a lesser core.