GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms P4000 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 242 | 121 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 17 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.90 | 97.62 |
| Power efficiency | 20.18 | 24.00 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 1 July 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5050 has 1315% better value for money than Quadro P4000.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 24 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 65 | 95−100
+46.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.54 | 2.62
+79.1%
|
- RTX 5050 has 79% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160 | 220−230
+41%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65 | 90−95
+45.2%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 65−70 | 100−105
+47.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 150−160
+41.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160 | 220−230
+41%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65 | 90−95
+45.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95 | 130−140
+42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 190−200
+45%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 160−170
+46.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 160−170
+44.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 260−270
+42.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 150−160
+41.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160 | 220−230
+41%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270 | 350−400
+30.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65 | 90−95
+45.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 190−200
+46.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95 | 130−140
+42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 190−200
+45%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 160−170
+46.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100 | 140−150
+41.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65 | 90−95
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 160−170
+44.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77 | 110−120
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 260−270
+42.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 150−160
+41.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65 | 90−95
+45.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140 | 190−200
+46.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95 | 130−140
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110 | 160−170
+46.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | 160−170
+44.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41 | 60−65
+46.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 260−270
+42.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 190−200
+45%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65 | 90−95
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200 | 280−290
+42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55 | 75−80
+41.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 55−60
+44.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 250−260
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 210−220 | 300−310
+41.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 110−120
+44.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70 | 95−100
+46.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75 | 100−105
+37%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50 | 65−70
+38.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70 | 100−105
+44.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24 | 30−33
+36.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 35−40
+45.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45 | 60−65
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 160−170 | 230−240
+42.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 60−65
+39.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 18−20
+38.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90 | 120−130
+36.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 50−55
+47.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 70−75
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 45−50
+45.2%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 45−50
+40.6%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 46% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.27 | 40.17 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 1 July 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has 23% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 47% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 69% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
