Gaming on the 4GB Radeon RX 6500 XT and GTX 1650 Super in 2026 — upscaling makes low-end GPUs viable for esports and internet cafes

Gaming on the 4GB Radeon RX 6500 XT and GTX 1650 Super in 2026
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)
29

As memory supplies get tighter and tighter and graphics card prices continue to rise, things are getting weirder and weirder in the discrete GPU market. The latest sign of the times is AMD's launch of the RX 9050 4GB, an OEM-only and region-specific variant of the already limited-release RX 9050 8GB. If 4GB GPUs are coming back, we wanted to see how much gamers should expect to suffer by attempting to play the latest games on graphics cards with such small memory pools.

For reference, the last time AMD launched a new 4GB product was all the way back in 2022 with the RX 6500 XT and the RX 6400. And at least for discrete GPUs, Nvidia got off the 4GB train years earlier, after the launch of the GTX 1650 Super back in 2019. At a minimum, most every discrete GPU since has had 6GB or 8GB of VRAM.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Jeffrey Kampman
Senior Analyst, Graphics

As the Senior Analyst, Graphics at Tom's Hardware, Jeff Kampman covers everything that has to do with graphics cards, gaming performance, and more. From integrated graphics processors to discrete graphics cards to the hyperscale installations powering our AI future, if it's got a GPU in it, Jeff is on it. 

  • usertests
    4 GB should also be enough for most PS4-era games. Many great games.

    The 9050 also brings much higher RT performance to the table compared to RDNA 2 and RDNA 3 products
    Is that even true with only 16 ray accelerators?
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    I wish you could've added the 6500XT 8GB as a comparison point.

    As a side: the outrageous thing about the 9050 4GB model is not so much the VRAM (still weird, but I don't disagree with the overall premise that it can work for some), but the bandwidth cut. That is a brutal step down from the 8GB sibling, which literally has twice the bandwidth and I'd be looking to see how bad that hits the siblings and their comparisons.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • 8086
    Dear AMD,

    I feel insulted by your recent actions, so I am buying intel and in turn I am getting more value, better performance, and more $$ in my wallet.

    -FK NVIDIA
    Reply
  • PEnns
    8086 said:
    Dear AMD,

    I feel insulted by your recent actions, so I am buying intel and in turn I am getting move value, better performance, and more $$ in my wallet.

    -FK NVIDIA too

    Best post of the RAMoCalypse era, LOL!!!! 👍👍

    PS: I added "too" after the final "sentiment".
    Reply
  • palladin9479
    Wait I thought you needed 8GB to boot your PC and play anything above 240p! Wouldn't 4GB be negative capacity causing a black hole to form and destroy the planet!!
    Reply
  • beyondlogic
    These cards would be better at 720p testing more realistic at that res
    Reply
  • usertests
    palladin9479 said:
    Wait I thought you needed 8GB to boot your PC and play anything above 240p! Wouldn't 4GB be negative capacity causing a black hole to form and destroy the planet!!
    Inefficient UE5 games could actually be stuck at resolutions below 720p to get 30-60 FPS on 4 GB. I'm looking squarely at Oblivion Remastered. So while decades of old games, as well as some newer lightweight games, will run on 4 GB, the experience going forward is only likely to deteriorate.

    9050 4GB is pretty much irrelevant at this time since it's OEM-only and may only ever be in a single CyberPowerPC pre-built (not sure).

    What these results suggested to me is that there could be a sweet spot for a 96-bit 9050 6GB, which would exceed the total VRAM usage of the 3 games tested here. IIRC, Oblivion Remastered also starts to run much better with 6 GB.

    I've maintained that the real crime of AMD's 9050 experiment was disabling it down to 16 CUs (while not even bothering to make it ≤75W, instead 92W with required power connector). The 9060 non-XT (OEM-only) is 28 CUs, and the 9050 should have been 24 CUs at the lowest.
    Reply
  • artk2219
    usertests said:
    Inefficient UE5 games could actually be stuck at resolutions below 720p to get 30-60 FPS on 4 GB. I'm looking squarely at Oblivion Remastered. So while decades of old games, as well as some newer lightweight games, will run on 4 GB, the experience going forward is only likely to deteriorate.

    9050 4GB is pretty much irrelevant at this time since it's OEM-only and may only ever be in a single CyberPowerPC pre-built (not sure).

    What these results suggested to me is that there could be a sweet spot for a 96-bit 9050 6GB, which would exceed the total VRAM usage of the 3 games tested here. IIRC, Oblivion Remastered also starts to run much better with 6 GB.

    I've maintained that the real crime of AMD's 9050 experiment was disabling it down to 16 CUs (while not even bothering to make it ≤75W, instead 92W with required power connector). The 9060 non-XT (OEM-only) is 28 CUs, and the 9050 should have been 24 CUs at the lowest.
    You're not wrong, its a missed opportunity for a decent low power card that you could throw into any office pc with enough space for it.

    It would have been a great pairing for any of the boatload of 8th, 9th, and 10th gen i5 office pcs that it could have fit into in the wild.
    Reply
  • 8086
    PEnns said:
    Best post of the RAMoCalypse era, LOL!!!! 👍👍

    PS: I added "too" after the final "sentiment".
    My pseudonym is F.K. Nvidia and signed my letter that way.
    Reply
  • usertests
    8086 said:
    My pseudonym is F.K. Nvidia and signed my letter that way.
    You couldn't afford me, sugar.
    - Jensen Hung
    Reply