RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile with RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell outperforms RTX 5050 Mobile by an impressive 93% 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 | 123 | 12 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.15 |
| Power efficiency | 59.07 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GB207 | GB202 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) | 18 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $8,565 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2560 | 24064 |
| Core clock speed | 2235 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2520 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 600 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 201.6 | 1,968 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.9 TFLOPS | 126 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 192 |
| TMUs | 80 | 752 |
| Tensor Cores | 80 | 752 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | 188 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 96 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 1.79 TB/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 | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 12.0 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
−83.5%
|
400−450
+83.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−82.8%
|
170−180
+82.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 80−85
−90.5%
|
160−170
+90.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
−86.6%
|
250−260
+86.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
−83.5%
|
400−450
+83.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−82.8%
|
170−180
+82.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
−89%
|
240−250
+89%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
−75.4%
|
300−310
+75.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
−89.5%
|
290−300
+89.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
−85.5%
|
230−240
+85.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−87.1%
|
290−300
+87.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 80−85
−90.5%
|
160−170
+90.5%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
−74.7%
|
400−450
+74.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
−86.6%
|
250−260
+86.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
−83.5%
|
400−450
+83.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−79.9%
|
500−550
+79.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−82.8%
|
170−180
+82.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
−89%
|
240−250
+89%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
−75.4%
|
300−310
+75.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
−89.5%
|
290−300
+89.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
−85.5%
|
230−240
+85.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
−92.3%
|
250−260
+92.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
−89.5%
|
180−190
+89.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−87.1%
|
290−300
+87.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 80−85
−90.5%
|
160−170
+90.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
−91.5%
|
270−280
+91.5%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
−74.7%
|
400−450
+74.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
−86.6%
|
250−260
+86.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−82.8%
|
170−180
+82.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
−89%
|
240−250
+89%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
−89.5%
|
290−300
+89.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
−87.1%
|
290−300
+87.1%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 80−85
−90.5%
|
160−170
+90.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
−91.5%
|
270−280
+91.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
−75.4%
|
300−310
+75.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
−90%
|
190−200
+90%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−81.2%
|
500−550
+81.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
−85.2%
|
150−160
+85.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
−89.7%
|
110−120
+89.7%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−91.6%
|
500−550
+91.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
−88.1%
|
190−200
+88.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−91.5%
|
90−95
+91.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
−87.5%
|
180−190
+87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−93%
|
220−230
+93%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 60−65
−80.3%
|
110−120
+80.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
−84.2%
|
140−150
+84.2%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
−90.5%
|
200−210
+90.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−84.8%
|
85−90
+84.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
−86%
|
160−170
+86%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−80.6%
|
65−70
+80.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
−90.5%
|
120−130
+90.5%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
−86.7%
|
450−500
+86.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
−90.5%
|
120−130
+90.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−88.7%
|
100−105
+88.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−84.2%
|
140−150
+84.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−85.2%
|
100−105
+85.2%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
−80.6%
|
65−70
+80.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
−92.3%
|
100−105
+92.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.77 | 74.85 |
| Recency | 24 June 2025 | 18 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 96 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 600 Watt |
RTX 5050 Mobile has an age advantage of 3 months, and 1100% lower power consumption.
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, on the other hand, has a 93.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell 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.
