GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs FirePro M5950
Aggregated performance score
GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms FirePro M5950 by a whopping 446% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 691 | 279 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 46 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.29 | no data |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Whistler-XT | GN20-S7 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (2 years ago) |
| Current price | $386 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30-45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 189.1 |
| Floating-point performance | 696.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro M5950 and GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
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 | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | no data | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms FirePro M5950 by 446% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms FirePro M5950 by 648% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms FirePro M5950 by 803% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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:
| 900p | 24
−442%
| 130−140
+442%
|
| Full HD | 26
−61.5%
| 42
+61.5%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−520%
| 31
+520%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−460%
| 28
+460%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−717%
|
49
+717%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−4100%
|
42
+4100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−269%
|
45−50
+269%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−600%
|
42
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−883%
|
59
+883%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−540%
|
60−65
+540%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−871%
|
68
+871%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−550%
|
35−40
+550%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−1433%
|
46
+1433%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−269%
|
45−50
+269%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−400%
|
30
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−783%
|
53
+783%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−540%
|
60−65
+540%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
−550%
|
35−40
+550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
−290%
|
35−40
+290%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−625%
|
58
+625%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−1200%
|
39
+1200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−600%
|
7
+600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−688%
|
60−65
+688%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−317%
|
25
+317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−717%
|
49
+717%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−540%
|
60−65
+540%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−325%
|
34
+325%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
−367%
|
27−30
+367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−640%
|
37
+640%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1750%
|
35−40
+1750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−567%
|
20−22
+567%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 12−14 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
This is how FirePro M5950 and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 442% faster in 900p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 62% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 520% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 460% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2050 Mobile is 4100% faster than the FirePro M5950.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 2050 Mobile surpassed FirePro M5950 in all 57 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.40 | 18.57 |
| Recency | 13 April 2011 | 17 December 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 30 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5950 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
