GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 Mobile outperforms RX Vega 56 by a significant 26% 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 | 193 | 121 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.09 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.33 | 59.92 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
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 | 3584 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 2235 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 201.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 12.9 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 224 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | no 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 type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 224.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 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 | 115
−21.7%
| 140−150
+21.7%
|
| 1440p | 77
−23.4%
| 95−100
+23.4%
|
| 4K | 50
−20%
| 60−65
+20%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.18 | no data |
| 4K | 7.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−22.5%
|
210−220
+22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−31%
|
90−95
+31%
|
| God of War | 70−75
−34.7%
|
95−100
+34.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+12.7%
|
130−140
−12.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−22.5%
|
210−220
+22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−31%
|
90−95
+31%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
−28.6%
|
120−130
+28.6%
|
| Fortnite | 150
−14%
|
170−180
+14%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
−8.5%
|
150−160
+8.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
−24%
|
120−130
+24%
|
| God of War | 70−75
−34.7%
|
95−100
+34.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
−1.3%
|
150−160
+1.3%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−16.8%
|
230−240
+16.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+4.5%
|
130−140
−4.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
−22.5%
|
210−220
+22.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−0.7%
|
270−280
+0.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−31%
|
90−95
+31%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−25%
|
170−180
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
−35.5%
|
120−130
+35.5%
|
| Fortnite | 139
−23%
|
170−180
+23%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
−14.2%
|
150−160
+14.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
−24%
|
120−130
+24%
|
| God of War | 70−75
−34.7%
|
95−100
+34.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
−38.3%
|
130−140
+38.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
−35.7%
|
95−100
+35.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
−13.1%
|
150−160
+13.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
−14.5%
|
140−150
+14.5%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−16.8%
|
230−240
+16.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
−2.3%
|
130−140
+2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
−31%
|
90−95
+31%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
−25%
|
170−180
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
−41.6%
|
120−130
+41.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
−40.4%
|
150−160
+40.4%
|
| God of War | 70−75
−34.7%
|
95−100
+34.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
−29.2%
|
150−160
+29.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
−91.9%
|
140−150
+91.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−21.8%
|
240−250
+21.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 108
−58.3%
|
170−180
+58.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
−35.1%
|
100−105
+35.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−25.3%
|
270−280
+25.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
−32.8%
|
80−85
+32.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
−38.1%
|
55−60
+38.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−25.7%
|
220−230
+25.7%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
−12%
|
260−270
+12%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 99
−2%
|
100−110
+2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
−38.2%
|
45−50
+38.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
−29.7%
|
95−100
+29.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
−29.5%
|
110−120
+29.5%
|
| God of War | 40−45
−30%
|
50−55
+30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−35.7%
|
75−80
+35.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
−41.9%
|
100−110
+41.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−35.3%
|
45−50
+35.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
−72%
|
85−90
+72%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
−33.3%
|
35−40
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
−43.2%
|
60−65
+43.2%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−26.7%
|
240−250
+26.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
−14.5%
|
60−65
+14.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−17.6%
|
40−45
+17.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
−25%
|
120−130
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−35.9%
|
50−55
+35.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
−28.8%
|
75−80
+28.8%
|
| God of War | 24−27
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
−22.7%
|
50−55
+22.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 37
−40.5%
|
50−55
+40.5%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and RTX 5050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 22% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 23% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 20% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 13% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5050 Mobile is 92% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- RTX 5050 Mobile performs better in 57 tests (97%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.19 | 39.22 |
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 24 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 5050 Mobile has a 25.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 320% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 56 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
