GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro FX 4700 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4700 X2 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms FX 4700 X2 by a whopping 2382% 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 | 969 | 113 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 94.88 |
| Power efficiency | 0.54 | 24.77 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | G92 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 April 2008 (17 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5050 has 948700% better value for money than FX 4700 X2.
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 | 128 ×2 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 226 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 ×2 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS ×2 | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB ×2 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s ×2 | 320.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.56 | 38.72 |
| Recency | 18 April 2008 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 226 Watt | 130 Watt |
RTX 5050 has a 2382.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 17 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1200% more advanced lithography process, and 73.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4700 X2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4700 X2 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.
