GeForce RTX 5050 vs Radeon HD 6540G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6540G2 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms HD 6540G2 by a whopping 3362% 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 | 1099 | 112 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 51 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 98.47 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 24.14 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | no data | GB207 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 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 | 480 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3233%
|
1100−1150
+3233%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−3293%
|
950−1000
+3293%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3338%
|
550−600
+3338%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3233%
|
1100−1150
+3233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−3338%
|
550−600
+3338%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3233%
|
1100−1150
+3233%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130−140
+3150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−3275%
|
270−280
+3275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−3233%
|
400−450
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3114%
|
450−500
+3114%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.17 | 40.50 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 24 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 5050 has a 3361.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6540G2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6540G2 is a notebook 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.
