GeForce RTX 4050 vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated124
Place by popularitynot in top-10041
Power efficiencyno data26.08
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameVega 10AD107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 October 2017 (7 years ago)2023 (1 year ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40962560
Core clock speed1156 MHz2505 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHz2640 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate319.2211.2
Floating-point processing powerno data13.52 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25680
Tensor Coresno data120
Ray Tracing Coresno data18

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length152 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 12-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB6 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1600 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s216.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI++

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.9

Pros & cons summary


Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 100 Watt

RX Vega 64 Nano has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.

RTX 4050, on the other hand, has a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano and GeForce RTX 4050. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050
GeForce RTX 4050

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1960 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4050 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.