GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 2600 XT with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms ATI HD 2600 XT by a whopping 2446% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1172 | 304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 29 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 28.71 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | RV630 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 June 2007 (17 years ago) | 17 December 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 120 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 1185 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1477 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 390 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.400 | 94.53 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.192 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | 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 | 10.0 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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 HD | 1−2
−4200%
| 43
+4200%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3300%
| 34
+3300%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 25 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 199.00 | no data |
| 1440p | 199.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 49
+0%
|
49
+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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+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%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+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%
|
| 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 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+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 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+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%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 2600 XT and RTX 2050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 4200% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2050 Mobile is 3300% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.71 | 18.08 |
| Recency | 28 June 2007 | 17 December 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 2050 Mobile has a 2446.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 2600 XT is a desktop 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
