Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5050 vs RTX A1000
GeForce RTX 5050 vs RTX A1000 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5050
- + Release year (+1)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+96 GB/s)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+65 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-5 nm)
- + CUDA cores (+256)
- + TMUs (+8)
- + RT cores (+2)
- + Tensor cores (+8)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+6.43 TFLOPS)
- + PassMark (overall) (+3314)
B
RTX A1000
- + Energy efficiency (+15.6)
- + Normalized score (+15.9)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5050
|
Component B
RTX A1000
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+1) | 2024 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | — | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 320 GB/s (+96 GB/s) | 224 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit | 128 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 115 W (+65 W) | 50 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 3 nm (-5 nm) | 8 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 16,900M | — |
| Die size (mm²) | 149 mm² | — |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | — |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | — |
| CUDA cores | 2,560 (+256) | 2,304 |
| TMUs | 80 (+8) | 72 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| RT cores | 20 (+2) | 18 |
| Tensor cores | 80 (+8) | 72 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 13.17 TFLOPS (+6.43 TFLOPS) | 6.74 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 82.30 GPixel/s | — |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 205.80 GTexel/s | — |
| Energy efficiency | 24.3 | 39.9 (+15.6) |
| PassMark (overall) | 14,067 (+3314) | 10,753 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | — |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | — | — |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 53,644 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 50,444 |
| Normalized score | 41.3 | 57.2 (+15.9) |
Only in component A
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
DLSS
ReBAR
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5050 | RTX A1000 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5050 wins 10 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).