GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile vs Quadro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
9.58

RTX 5050 Mobile outperforms M2000 by a whopping 311% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking477116
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.54no data
Power efficiency9.7360.05
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Blackwell 2.0 (2025)
GPU code nameGM206GB207
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date8 April 2016 (9 years ago)24 June 2025 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores7682560
Core clock speed796 MHz2235 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz2520 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82201.6
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS12.9 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4880
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 type128 BitGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s224.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
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 Connectors4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.4
CUDA5.212.0
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.

Quadro M2000 9.58
RTX 5050 Mobile 39.41
+311%

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.

Quadro M2000 4016
RTX 5050 Mobile 16514
+311%

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
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
God of War 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
God of War 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
God of War 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
God of War 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
God of War 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
God of War 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.58 39.41
Recency 8 April 2016 24 June 2025
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

RTX 5050 Mobile has a 311.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 224 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 80 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro M2000 or GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.