AMD Radeon Pro 5700 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear generational clash between NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace mobile architecture and AMD’s RDNA 1.0 professional part. The GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile wins 8 of 9 head-to-head comparisons, with the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 taking only a single 2D workload. The average benchmark scores reflect this: the RTX 4050 Mobile posts 19,049 against the Radeon Pro 5700’s 18,189, a 4.7% gap that understates the magnitude of the wins in specific API tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive margin comes in DirectX 11. The RTX 4050 Mobile scores 130 against the Radeon Pro 5700’s 78, a 66.7% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison and suggests the NVIDIA architecture handles legacy draw-call-heavy workloads far more efficiently than AMD’s RDNA 1.0 design.

Vulkan performance shows a similar, though slightly smaller, gap. The RTX 4050 Mobile reaches 75,235 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon Pro 5700 manages 51,289 — a 46.7% lead for NVIDIA. The OpenCL result follows the same pattern: 74,748 versus 52,787, a 41.6% edge. These cross-API wins indicate that the RTX 4050 Mobile’s compute scheduling and driver optimization deliver consistent results regardless of the graphics abstraction layer.

The DirectX 9 test also favors NVIDIA substantially. The RTX 4050 Mobile posts 184 versus 143 for the Radeon Pro 5700, a 28.7% difference. DirectX 12 narrows the gap to 27.1% (61 versus 48), while DirectX 10 shows an 11.3% margin (79 versus 71). The PassMark G3D score, which aggregates general 3D rendering performance, comes in at 14,423 for the RTX 4050 Mobile and 11,583 for the Radeon Pro 5700, a 24.5% lead.

Compute workloads tell a similar story. PassMark GPU Compute scores 5,947 for the RTX 4050 Mobile versus 4,961 for the Radeon Pro 5700, a 19.9% advantage. The only benchmark the AMD card wins is PassMark G2D, where it scores 805 against the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 633 — a 21.4% margin in favor of the Radeon Pro 5700. This 2D performance win suggests the AMD card has stronger raw pixel-pushing capabilities for desktop-style workloads, even though it trails in every 3D and compute test.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing nodes and design philosophies. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses TSMC’s 5 nm process with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The Radeon Pro 5700 uses TSMC’s 7 nm process with 10,300 million transistors on a much larger 251 mm² die, giving it a density of 41.0M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs nearly twice the transistors into a smaller area, which explains its efficiency advantages.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA in raw terms. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a base clock of 1455 MHz and a boost of 1755 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 5700 runs at 1243 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective throughput, compared to the Radeon Pro 5700’s 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective. However, the AMD card has a wider memory interface: 256-bit versus 96-bit, giving it 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth against the NVIDIA card’s 192.0 GB/s.

The compute pipelines differ significantly. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, along with 20 dedicated ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. The Radeon Pro 5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing or tensor cores. The FP32 throughput reflects this: the RTX 4050 Mobile delivers 8.986 TFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 5700 manages 6.221 TFLOPS. In FP16, the AMD card’s 2:1 ratio gives it 12.44 TFLOPS, but the NVIDIA card’s 1:1 ratio caps it at 8.986 TFLOPS.

The feature sets diverge on API support. The RTX 4050 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro 5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 75,235, whereas the AMD card’s Vulkan result is 51,289, reinforcing the architectural gap.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Mobile dominates in every 3D graphics and compute scenario. Its 66.7% DirectX 11 lead makes it the clear choice for older game engines and compatibility-focused applications. The 46.7% Vulkan advantage positions it well for modern cross-platform titles and compute-heavy workloads. The 41.6% OpenCL margin indicates strong general-purpose compute performance, and the 24.5% G3D lead suggests better overall rasterization throughput.

The Radeon Pro 5700’s single win in the G2D test (805 versus 633, a 21.4% margin) points to its strength in 2D desktop rendering and interface composition. This could matter for professional applications that spend significant time drawing windows, text, and vector graphics rather than rendering 3D scenes. The AMD card’s larger 8 GB memory pool and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it an advantage in memory-intensive tasks that require holding large datasets, even if its raw compute throughput is lower.

For gaming, the RTX 4050 Mobile’s ray tracing and tensor cores provide hardware acceleration that the Radeon Pro 5700 lacks entirely. The 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores enable features like DLSS and real-time ray tracing, which are absent from the AMD architecture. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s 96-bit memory bus is narrower, but its higher effective memory speed partially compensates, and the 6 GB capacity is sufficient for most mobile gaming scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile delivers 8.986 TFLOPS, which is 44.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 5700’s 6.221 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 support hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 5700 has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores, while the RTX 4050 Mobile includes 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores.

Q: Which card wins in DirectX 11 performance?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile scores 130 in PassMark DirectX 11, which is 66.7% higher than the Radeon Pro 5700’s 78.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5700 has 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth, double the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 192.0 GB/s, due to its 256-bit bus versus the NVIDIA card’s 96-bit bus.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan compute?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile scores 75,235 in Geekbench Vulkan, a 46.7% advantage over the Radeon Pro 5700’s 51,289.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile boosts to 1755 MHz, compared to the Radeon Pro 5700’s 1350 MHz.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile as the superior GPU for virtually all 3D and compute tasks. It wins 8 of 9 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 11.3% in DirectX 10 to 66.7% in DirectX 11. Its 5 nm process node and Ada Lovelace architecture deliver higher transistor density (118.9M per mm² versus 41.0M), more shading units (2,560 versus 2,304), and hardware ray tracing support that the AMD card lacks. The RTX 4050 Mobile also has a higher average benchmark score (19,049 versus 18,189) and a higher percentile rank (63 versus 62).

The AMD Radeon Pro 5700 is the choice only for specific scenarios. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 384.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for memory-hungry professional workloads, and its 2D performance lead (805 versus 633 in G2D) could matter for desktop-oriented applications. However, its 130 W TDP is more than double the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 50 W, making the NVIDIA card far more efficient for mobile or power-constrained environments. The Radeon Pro 5700 is also end-of-life, while the RTX 4050 Mobile remains active in production.

For gamers, developers, or anyone running 3D applications, the RTX 4050 Mobile is the clear winner. For professionals who need maximum memory bandwidth and don’t require ray tracing, the Radeon Pro 5700 has niche appeal, but its lower compute throughput and lack of modern features make it a harder sell.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro 5700 |

|---|---|---|

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 18,900 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 159 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 118.9M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1455 MHz | 1243 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1755 MHz | 1350 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 96 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 80 | 144 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 20 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 80 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 8.986 TFLOPS | 6.221 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.986 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.44 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 130 W |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |