Quadro K5000 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Quadro K5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms K5000 by a whopping 133% 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 | 286 | 493 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.27 |
| Power efficiency | 28.46 | 6.01 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 17 August 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 122 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 90.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.169 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 172.8 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 data | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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 | 62
+158%
| 24−27
−158%
|
| 1440p | 43
+139%
| 18−20
−139%
|
| 4K | 27
+170%
| 10−12
−170%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 104.13 |
| 1440p | no data | 138.83 |
| 4K | no data | 249.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+143%
|
70−75
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+144%
|
27−30
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+150%
|
50−55
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+152%
|
27−30
−152%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+153%
|
45−50
−153%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+157%
|
35−40
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+149%
|
35−40
−149%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+151%
|
100−105
−151%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+136%
|
50−55
−136%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+137%
|
27−30
−137%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+153%
|
45−50
−153%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+157%
|
35−40
−157%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77
+157%
|
30−33
−157%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+146%
|
35−40
−146%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+170%
|
30−33
−170%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+149%
|
45−50
−149%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+154%
|
35−40
−154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+154%
|
24−27
−154%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+157%
|
35−40
−157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+151%
|
35−40
−151%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+146%
|
65−70
−146%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+153%
|
45−50
−153%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+149%
|
65−70
−149%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+167%
|
18−20
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+149%
|
70−75
−149%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+146%
|
80−85
−146%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+144%
|
27−30
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+138%
|
21−24
−138%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+142%
|
24−27
−142%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+157%
|
21−24
−157%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+144%
|
18−20
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+140%
|
55−60
−140%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+158%
|
24−27
−158%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+150%
|
16−18
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+140%
|
10−11
−140%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Quadro K5000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 158% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 139% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 170% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.95 | 9.42 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 17 August 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 122 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 133% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 103.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
