GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro K5100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5100M with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms K5100M by a whopping 425% 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 | 562 | 111 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 98.70 |
| Power efficiency | 5.99 | 24.18 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 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 | 1536 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 98.69 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.369 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 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 | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
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 | 51
−410%
| 260−270
+410%
|
| 4K | 26
−400%
| 130−140
+400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.96 |
| 4K | no data | 1.92 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−412%
|
210−220
+412%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−412%
|
210−220
+412%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−400%
|
160−170
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−420%
|
130−140
+420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−421%
|
250−260
+421%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−400%
|
120−130
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−388%
|
400−450
+388%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−412%
|
210−220
+412%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−420%
|
650−700
+420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−400%
|
300−310
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−400%
|
160−170
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−420%
|
130−140
+420%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−421%
|
250−260
+421%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−400%
|
120−130
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 25
−420%
|
130−140
+420%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−388%
|
400−450
+388%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−400%
|
300−310
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
−400%
|
160−170
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−420%
|
130−140
+420%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−414%
|
180−190
+414%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−400%
|
70−75
+400%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−388%
|
400−450
+388%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−421%
|
250−260
+421%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−392%
|
300−310
+392%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−412%
|
220−230
+412%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−406%
|
450−500
+406%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−400%
|
85−90
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−400%
|
95−100
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−400%
|
55−60
+400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−400%
|
80−85
+400%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−400%
|
95−100
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−412%
|
210−220
+412%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−400%
|
65−70
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
This is how K5100M and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 410% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5050 is 400% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.80 | 40.95 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 24 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
K5100M has 30% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 425% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K5100M 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.
