AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, despite both being end-of-life products aimed at professional and mobile workloads. The recorded data shows that the NVIDIA part is a mobile-first Ampere chip with a modest power envelope, while the AMD part is a desktop-class Radeon Pro card built for Apple Mac systems with a much higher power draw and a larger memory pool. Their benchmark scores, architectural choices, and feature sets reveal a split that is less about raw speed and more about context: one is a compact, portable solution with modern API support, and the other is a heavier, memory-rich workstation card. The following analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, how their internal designs differ, and what the measurements imply for different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results in the database paint a clear picture of two devices excelling in different arenas. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile holds a significant advantage in general-purpose compute and cross-platform graphics tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 50038 is far ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, which has no OpenCL result recorded but posts a Geekbench Metal score of 27973. That OpenCL figure positions the RTX 3050 Mobile as the stronger choice for workloads that rely on vendor-neutral compute APIs, especially in environments where OpenCL is the primary interface. The NVIDIA GPU also scores 49051 in Geekbench Vulkan, demonstrating robust performance in Vulkan-based applications, a feature the AMD card cannot match in the recorded data since no Vulkan benchmark appears for it.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, by contrast, wins in the field of raw memory capacity and bandwidth. With 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, it offers 4 GB more memory and 32 GB/s more bandwidth than the RTX 3050 Mobile, which has 4 GB and 192.0 GB/s. For tasks that involve large datasets, high-resolution textures, or complex scene geometry, that additional capacity is a tangible advantage, even if the compute scores do not reflect it directly. The AMD card also posts a higher pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part, and a texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s versus 85.95 GTexel/s. These metrics suggest the W5500X is more efficient at filling pixels and applying textures, which could translate to better performance in rasterization-heavy professional workloads, such as CAD viewport rendering or 3D modeling, where fill rates matter more than raw FP32 compute.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The RTX 3050 Mobile sits at the 78th percentile among all GPUs, while the W5500X sits at the 73rd. That five-point gap in percentile, combined with the average benchmark score of 33170 for NVIDIA versus 27973 for AMD, indicates that the mobile chip generally outperforms the desktop card in aggregated synthetic tests. However, that advantage is not universal. The AMD card’s average score places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, which scores 28020, a delta of -0.2%, meaning the W5500X is essentially on par with that older desktop flagship in the database’s measurements. The RTX 3050 Mobile, meanwhile, sits close to the NVIDIA T550 Mobile and AMD Radeon Pro 570, with deltas of 0% and -0.1% respectively. This suggests the NVIDIA chip is a mid-range mobile performer, while the AMD card is a workstation GPU with a different performance profile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is wide. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is built on the GA107 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M / mm². The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5M / mm². The process node difference is notable: 7 nm versus 8 nm, which gives the AMD chip a smaller die and fewer transistors, yet it still manages comparable FP32 throughput, 5.398 TFLOPS versus 5.501 TFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The RTX 3050 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the W5500X has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That means NVIDIA packs more shaders but fewer texture units. The result is a GPU that leans toward shader-heavy compute, while AMD’s higher TMU count drives its texture rate advantage. The NVIDIA chip also includes 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the AMD card, which has null values for both. This is a fundamental difference: the RTX 3050 Mobile supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI-based tensor operations, while the W5500X does not.

FP16 performance further separates them. The RTX 3050 Mobile delivers 5.501 TFLOPS for FP16, matching its FP32 throughput at a 1:1 ratio. The W5500X delivers 10.80 TFLOPS for FP16, a 2:1 ratio over its FP32 figure. That makes the AMD card substantially faster for half-precision workloads, which could matter for machine learning inference or certain scientific computations that use FP16. The NVIDIA card’s tensor cores, however, offer a different path for AI acceleration, one that is not directly comparable in the recorded data.

Memory architectures also differ despite sharing the same bus width. Both use a 128-bit bus and GDDR6 memory, but the RTX 3050 Mobile runs its memory at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, while the W5500X runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed. That clock difference explains the bandwidth gap: 192.0 GB/s for NVIDIA versus 224.0 GB/s for AMD. The AMD card also has double the capacity, 8 GB versus 4 GB, which is a major differentiator for memory-hungry applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are limited in the database, as no shared test results exist between the two GPUs. The RTX 3050 Mobile has three recorded benchmarks: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 421, Geekbench OpenCL with 50038, and Geekbench Vulkan with 49051. The W5500X has only one recorded benchmark: Geekbench Metal with a score of 27973. Without overlapping tests, a direct apples-to-apples comparison is impossible from the recorded data. However, the average benchmark scores offer a proxy. The RTX 3050 Mobile averages 33170, while the W5500X averages 27973, a difference of 5197 points, or roughly 18.6% higher for the NVIDIA part.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The RTX 3050 Mobile’s average score of 33170 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA T550 Mobile’s 33161, with a delta of 0%, and the AMD Radeon Pro 570’s 33207, with a delta of -0.1%. It also edges out the NVIDIA P104-100 by 0.6% and the NVIDIA T600 Mobile by 1%. The W5500X’s average score of 27973 is 0.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 0.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 7800M, 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20, and 0.5% below the AMD FirePro S7150. These deltas show that the RTX 3050 Mobile competes with modern mobile workstation GPUs, while the W5500X aligns with older desktop high-end parts.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 421 for the RTX 3050 Mobile is the only DirectX 12 benchmark in the data. That test, combined with the GPU’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support, indicates strong modern API performance. The W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a lower feature level, and has no equivalent benchmark recorded. For Vulkan, the RTX 3050 Mobile’s 49051 score demonstrates solid performance, and both GPUs support Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator there. OpenGL 4.6 is supported by both, but again, only the NVIDIA card has a corresponding benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 33170, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has an average score of 27973. That puts the NVIDIA card roughly 18.6% higher in aggregated performance.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X support ray tracing?

A: No. The database lists null values for ray tracing cores and tensor cores on the W5500X. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, by contrast, has 16 ray tracing cores and 64 tensor cores.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and what is the bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX 3050 Mobile has a TDP of 45 W and uses no power connectors, as it is an integrated form factor (IGP). The W5500X has a TDP of 125 W, a dual-slot design, and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU has better FP16 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X delivers 10.80 TFLOPS for FP16, which is a 2:1 ratio over its FP32 performance. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile delivers 5.501 TFLOPS for FP16, matching its FP32 output at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile uses Samsung’s 8 nm process with a 200 mm² die and 8,700 million transistors. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses TSMC’s 7 nm process with a 158 mm² die and 6,400 million transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of purpose. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is the better choice for users who need a compact, low-power GPU with modern feature support. Its 45 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and power constraints are tight. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support, 16 ray tracing cores, 64 tensor cores, and Vulkan 1.4 compatibility position it as a more future-proof option for gaming, ray-traced content, and AI-accelerated tasks. The higher average benchmark score of 33170 and the 78th percentile ranking reinforce its all-around capability.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X, on the other hand, is a workstation card built for Mac systems, as indicated by its Apple MPX bus interface and dual HDMI 2.0b outputs. Its 8 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a distinct advantage for memory-intensive professional workloads, such as video editing, large 3D scenes, or high-resolution texture work. Its higher pixel rate of 56.22 GPixel/s and texture rate of 168.7 GTexel/s suggest better rasterization throughput, which could benefit viewport performance in professional applications. The 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU, however, make it a desktop-only solution, unsuitable for mobile use.

For users prioritizing portability, modern API support, and ray tracing, the RTX 3050 Mobile is the logical pick. For users with a Mac desktop who need more memory and bandwidth for professional content creation, the W5500X is the better fit. The launch MSRP of 599 USD for the W5500X indicates its workstation positioning, though pricing should not be the sole factor in decision-making. The database’s measurements show that neither GPU is universally superior; each wins where its architecture is strongest.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile | AMD Radeon Pro W5500X |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 8,700 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 43.5M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1065 MHz | 1187 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1343 MHz | 1757 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective | 1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 64 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 16 | None |

| Tensor Cores | 64 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 42.98 GPixel/s | 56.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 85.95 GTexel/s | 168.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.501 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.501 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.10 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 45 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x HDMI 2.0b |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2021-05-10 | 2019-12-10 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 33170 | 27973 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 78 | 73 |