GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs GT 415M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 415M and GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 2419% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1155 | 294 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 17 |
| Power efficiency | 4.29 | 28.79 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (2 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 | 48 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1185 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 94.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.096 TFLOPS | 6.05 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 1−2
−4200%
| 43
+4200%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3500%
| 36
+3500%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3100%
| 32
+3100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1533%
|
49
+1533%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−780%
|
44
+780%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−727%
|
90−95
+727%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−917%
|
60−65
+917%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−184%
|
85−90
+184%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−760%
|
43
+760%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−727%
|
90−95
+727%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−933%
|
62
+933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−320%
|
40−45
+320%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−184%
|
85−90
+184%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−733%
|
25
+733%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−727%
|
90−95
+727%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−817%
|
55
+817%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−230%
|
33
+230%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+72.2%
|
18
−72.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 35−40 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−1167%
|
35−40
+1167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how GT 415M and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 4200% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 3500% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 3100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 415M is 72% faster.
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 2050 Mobile is 5450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 415M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RTX 2050 Mobile is ahead in 34 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 18.64 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 17 December 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 45 Watt |
GT 415M has 275% lower power consumption.
RTX 2050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2418.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
