GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs Quadro FX 5500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5500 with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 5500
2006
1 GB GDDR3, 96 Watt
0.63

RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms FX 5500 by a whopping 2873% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1197298
Place by popularitynot in top-10017
Power efficiency0.4528.72
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG71GA107
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date20 April 2006 (18 years ago)17 December 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 coresno data2048
Core clock speed650 MHz1185 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1477 MHz
Number of transistors278 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)96 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate15.6094.53
Floating-point processing powerno data6.05 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2464
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed505 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth32.32 GB/s112.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x 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 Readyno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6

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 HD1−2
−4100%
42
+4100%
1440p1−2
−3200%
33
+3200%
4K0−125

Cost per frame, $

1080p2999.00no data
1440p2999.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 49
+0%
49
+0%
Elden Ring 43
+0%
43
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 87
+0%
87
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Dota 2 85
+0%
85
+0%
Elden Ring 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Fortnite 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 63
+0%
63
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 69
+0%
69
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 43
+0%
43
+0%
World of Tanks 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Valorant 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 37
+0%
37
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 47
+0%
47
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Elden Ring 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 34
+0%
34
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how FX 5500 and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2050 Mobile is 4100% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2050 Mobile is 3200% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.63 18.73
Recency 20 April 2006 17 December 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 96 Watt 45 Watt

RTX 2050 Mobile has a 2873% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1025% more advanced lithography process, and 113.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 5500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 5500 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Quadro FX 5500
Quadro FX 5500
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile

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.


4 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2324 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.