Component comparison
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce RTX 2050
GeForce MX550 vs GeForce RTX 2050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce MX550
- + Base clock (MHz) (+330 MHz)
- + Boost clock (MHz) (+75 MHz)
- + Energy efficiency (+3.2)
B
GeForce RTX 2050
- + VRAM (GB) (+2 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+16 GB/s)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+20 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+4,000M)
- + CUDA cores (+1024)
- + TMUs (+32)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+2.03 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+18.72 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+37.44 GTexel/s)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+751)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+2839)
- + Geekbench OpenCL (+10211)
- + Geekbench Vulkan (+10661)
- + Normalized score (+6.1)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce MX550
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 2050
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2021 | 2021 |
| VRAM (GB) | 2 GB | 4 GB (+2 GB) |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz (+250 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 96 GB/s | 112 GB/s (+16 GB/s) |
| Memory bus (bit) | 64 bit | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 25 W | 45 W (+20 W) |
| Lithography (nm) | 12 nm | 8 nm (-4 nm) |
| Transistors (M) | 4,700M | 8,700M (+4,000M) |
| Die size (mm²) | 200 mm² | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | 1065 MHz (+330 MHz) | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | 1320 MHz (+75 MHz) | 1245 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 1,024 | 2,048 (+1024) |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 (+32) |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 (+16) |
| RT cores | — | 32 |
| Tensor cores | — | 64 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS | 4.73 TFLOPS (+2.03 TFLOPS) |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s | 39.84 GPixel/s (+18.72 GPixel/s) |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s | 79.68 GTexel/s (+37.44 GTexel/s) |
| Energy efficiency | 32.8 (+3.2) | 29.6 |
| PassMark (overall) | 4,419 | — |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 2,470 | 3,221 (+751) |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 6,126 | 8,965 (+2839) |
| Geekbench OpenCL | 34,068 | 44,279 (+10211) |
| Geekbench Vulkan | 32,369 | 43,030 (+10661) |
| Normalized score | 49.1 | 55.2 (+6.1) |
Only in component B
DLSS
ReBAR
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce MX550 | GeForce RTX 2050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 45 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | 55.6% (B) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55 FPS | ≈ 74 FPS | 34.5% (B) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21 FPS | 18 FPS | +16.7% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 111 FPS | 71 FPS | +56.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 45 FPS | 35 FPS | +28.6% (A) |
| Fortnite | 60 FPS | ≈ 95 FPS | 58.3% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | 55.6% (B) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47 FPS | 53 FPS | 12.8% (B) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 21 FPS | ≈ 35 FPS | 66.7% (B) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 21 FPS | 17 FPS | +23.5% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 50 FPS | ≈ 58 FPS | 16% (B) |
| Valorant | 95 FPS | ≈ 130 FPS | 36.8% (B) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings. Values for GeForce RTX 2050 are model predictions (≈); GeForce MX550 are direct measurements.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 2050 wins 17 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).