Radeon RX 9050 vs Quadro P500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P500 with Radeon RX 9050, including specs and performance data.
RX 9050 outperforms P500 by a whopping 518% 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 | 765 | 264 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 17.09 | 20.66 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | Navi 44 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 January 2018 (8 years ago) | 28 July 2026 (less than a 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 1330 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1518 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 29,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 92 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.29 | 166.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7772 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 288.0 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 20
−83.3%
| 120−130 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 55−60
+511%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 55−60
+511%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14 | 85−90
+507%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 140−150
+509%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 110−120
+479%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Valorant | 50−55 | 300−310
+456%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10 | 55−60
+511%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75 | 400−450
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Dota 2 | 49 | 300−310
+512%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 70−75
+483%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 140−150
+509%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 110−120
+479%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 70−75
+483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 40−45
+471%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 85−90
+507%
|
| Valorant | 50−55 | 300−310
+456%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Dota 2 | 45 | 270−280
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 110−120
+479%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Valorant | 50−55 | 300−310
+456%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 140−150
+509%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 45−50
+463%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33 | 180−190
+500%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 30−33
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 12−14
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 190−200
+494%
|
| Valorant | 35−40 | 240−250
+515%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 40−45
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 55−60
+511%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 30−33
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 40−45
+471%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4 | 18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 30−33
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 95−100
+494%
|
| Valorant | 16−18 | 100−105
+488%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14 | 80−85
+515%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 18−20
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 30−33
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 24−27
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 24−27
+500%
|
This is how Quadro P500 and RX 9050 compete in popular games:
- RX 9050 is 500% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.95 | 24.40 |
| Recency | 5 January 2018 | 28 July 2026 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 92 Watt |
Quadro P500 has 80% lower power consumption.
RX 9050, on the other hand, has a 518% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 9050 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.
