GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro FX 380M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 380M with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
5050 outperforms 380M by a whopping 14196% 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 | 1383 | 113 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 97.04 |
| Power efficiency | 0.87 | 23.85 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
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 | 16 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04698 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.64 GB/s | 320.0 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, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−13650%
|
550−600
+13650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−14131%
|
3700−3750
+14131%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−14131%
|
1850−1900
+14131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−13789%
|
1250−1300
+13789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−13650%
|
550−600
+13650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−14131%
|
3700−3750
+14131%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−13789%
|
1250−1300
+13789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−13650%
|
550−600
+13650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14186%
|
1000−1050
+14186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−13900%
|
700−750
+13900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−14131%
|
3700−3750
+14131%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−13900%
|
280−290
+13900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−13233%
|
400−450
+13233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−13900%
|
2100−2150
+13900%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−13900%
|
280−290
+13900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−13900%
|
140−150
+13900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−13900%
|
280−290
+13900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 38.60 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 130 Watt |
FX 380M has 420% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 14196.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 380M is a mobile 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.
