GeForce RTX 5050 vs Radeon Pro Duo
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Duo with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms Pro Duo by an impressive 98% 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 | 314 | 118 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 14 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.08 | 97.73 |
| Power efficiency | 4.49 | 23.98 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Capsaicin | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 26 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 1 July 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5050 has 4599% better value for money than Pro Duo.
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 | 4096 ×2 | 2560 |
| Compute units | 128 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 ×2 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS ×2 | no data |
| ROPs | 64 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 256 ×2 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 277 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 3x 8-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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB ×2 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s ×2 | 320.0 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.31 | 40.31 |
| Recency | 26 April 2016 | 1 July 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 130 Watt |
RTX 5050 has a 98% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 169% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro Duo in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Duo 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.
