GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro P5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms P5200 by a considerable 47% 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 | 218 | 101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 99.41 |
| Power efficiency | 21.37 | 24.18 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1746 MHz | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 279.4 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.94 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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 | 120
−41.7%
| 170−180
+41.7%
|
| 4K | 48
−45.8%
| 70−75
+45.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.46 |
| 4K | no data | 3.56 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
−41.1%
|
230−240
+41.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
−41.1%
|
230−240
+41.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
−39.8%
|
130−140
+39.8%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
−41.8%
|
190−200
+41.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−42.9%
|
160−170
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−40.4%
|
160−170
+40.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−45.9%
|
270−280
+45.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
−41.1%
|
230−240
+41.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
−32.6%
|
350−400
+32.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−43.9%
|
190−200
+43.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
−39.8%
|
130−140
+39.8%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
−41.8%
|
190−200
+41.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−42.9%
|
160−170
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
−38.6%
|
140−150
+38.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
−46.2%
|
95−100
+46.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−40.4%
|
160−170
+40.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
−44.1%
|
170−180
+44.1%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−45.9%
|
270−280
+45.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
−38.9%
|
150−160
+38.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−43.9%
|
190−200
+43.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
−39.8%
|
130−140
+39.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
−42.9%
|
160−170
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
−40.4%
|
160−170
+40.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 60−65
−39.3%
|
85−90
+39.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65
−46.2%
|
95−100
+46.2%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−45.9%
|
270−280
+45.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
−41.8%
|
190−200
+41.8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
−46.2%
|
95−100
+46.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
−45%
|
290−300
+45%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
−38.9%
|
75−80
+38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−41%
|
55−60
+41%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−42.9%
|
250−260
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
−35.1%
|
300−310
+35.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−41%
|
110−120
+41%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−41.8%
|
95−100
+41.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−44.7%
|
110−120
+44.7%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40−45
−46.3%
|
60−65
+46.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
−42.9%
|
70−75
+42.9%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
−40.8%
|
100−105
+40.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
−42.9%
|
80−85
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−40%
|
35−40
+40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
−41.3%
|
65−70
+41.3%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−46.2%
|
250−260
+46.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−44.4%
|
65−70
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18−20
+38.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
−44.4%
|
130−140
+44.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−42.9%
|
50−55
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−37.3%
|
70−75
+37.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35−40
+45.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
−36.4%
|
45−50
+36.4%
|
This is how Quadro P5200 and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 42% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5050 is 46% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.20 | 41.46 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 130 Watt |
Quadro P5200 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 30% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 47% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P5200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5200 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.
