Radeon 890M vs GeForce RTX 5050

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 5050 with Radeon 890M, including specs and performance data.

RTX 5050
2025
8 GB GDDR6, 130 Watt
42.02
+114%

RTX 5050 outperforms 890M by a whopping 114% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking99297
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency24.64100.00
ArchitectureBlackwell 2.0 (2025)RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025)
GPU code nameGB207Strix Point
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date24 June 2025 (less than a year ago)15 July 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 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 cores25601024
Core clock speed2317 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed2572 MHz2900 MHz
Number of transistors16,900 million34,000 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate205.8185.6
Floating-point processing power13.17 TFLOPS5.939 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8064
Tensor Cores80no data
Ray Tracing Cores2016

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 5.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1bPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.1
Vulkan1.41.3
CUDA12.0-
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.

RTX 5050 42.02
+114%
Radeon 890M 19.68

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.

RTX 5050 17608
+114%
Radeon 890M 8245

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 HD90−95
+109%
43
−109%
1440p35−40
+94.4%
18
−94.4%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.77no data
1440p7.11no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 117
+0%
117
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 91
+0%
91
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 77
+0%
77
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 54
+0%
54
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+0%
52
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
God of War 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
God of War 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
God of War 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how RTX 5050 and Radeon 890M compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5050 is 109% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5050 is 94% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 42.02 19.68
Recency 24 June 2025 15 July 2024
Chip lithography 5 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 15 Watt

RTX 5050 has a 113.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.

Radeon 890M, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 766.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 890M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 5050 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 890M 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 GeForce RTX 5050
GeForce RTX 5050
AMD Radeon 890M
Radeon 890M

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.


3.2 449 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 213 votes

Rate Radeon 890M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 5050 or Radeon 890M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.