GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs Radeon RX Vega M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms RX Vega M by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 331 | 305 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Power efficiency | 78.23 | 28.54 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (3 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1185 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1190 MHz | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.08 | 94.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 6.05 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | large |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 35−40
−17.1%
| 41
+17.1%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−13.3%
| 34
+13.3%
|
| 4K | 21−24
−23.8%
| 26
+23.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega M and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 17% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 13% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 24% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.71 | 18.29 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 17 December 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 45 Watt |
RX Vega M has 200% lower power consumption.
RTX 2050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX Vega M and GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M is a desktop card while GeForce RTX 2050 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.
