AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM and AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT are both end-of-life graphics cards that target the same performance tier, yet the data reveals a starkly one-sided competitive landscape. While both cards occupy the 57th percentile of all GPUs according to the benchmark database, the RTX 3050 OEM holds a decisive advantage across every single head-to-head test, making the comparison less about nuanced trade-offs and more about the magnitude of the generational gap. The RX 5500 XT, a RDNA 1.0 product from the Radeon RX 5000 series, is consistently outpaced by the Ampere-based RTX 3050 OEM, which was released over two years later. This analysis will dissect the benchmark results, architectural differences, and specific performance deltas to determine where each card finds its niche.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM wins every single one of the nine comparative tests, leaving the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT with zero victories. This is not a case of one card excelling in certain workloads while the other takes the lead elsewhere; the RTX 3050 OEM is simply faster in every measurable category. The most significant wins for the NVIDIA card come in API-specific tests, particularly the Passmark DirectX 11 test where it leads by 53.6%, and the DirectX 12 test where it is 45% ahead. These are the modern gaming and compute APIs, suggesting the RTX 3050 OEM is substantially better suited for contemporary software workloads.

The RX 5500 XT’s closest relative performance comes in the legacy Passmark DirectX 9 test, where it trails by only 3%. This indicates that for very old titles or applications built on legacy APIs, the performance gap narrows considerably, though the RTX 3050 OEM still comes out on top. For general 2D desktop workloads, as measured by Passmark G2D, the NVIDIA card is 25.7% faster, indicating a snappier experience for everyday tasks. In compute-heavy scenarios, the RTX 3050 OEM is 30% ahead in Passmark GPU Compute and 29.3% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL, solidifying its position as the superior choice for any task that leverages raw processing power. The only category where the AMD card could be considered to "win" is in its physical footprint, as it is significantly shorter at 180 mm compared to the RTX 3050 OEM's 242 mm, making it a better fit for compact cases, but this is a physical attribute, not a performance win.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes, which explains the performance disparity. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is based on the GA106 chip using the Ampere architecture, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process node. This chip contains 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip with the RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on TSMC's more advanced 7 nm process. The Navi 14 chip has 6,400 million transistors on a much smaller 158 mm² die, resulting in a lower transistor density of 40.5M per mm². The RTX 3050 OEM’s larger, more transistor-dense chip provides a substantial foundation for its performance lead.

The internal compute configurations differ wildly. The RTX 3050 OEM packs 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). It also features 18 dedicated ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI features, which the RX 5500 XT lacks entirely. The AMD card, meanwhile, has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. While the RX 5500 XT has more TMUs, which contributes to its higher texture fill rate of 162.4 GTexel/s compared to the RTX 3050 OEM's 126.4 GTexel/s, the NVIDIA card's raw shader count and specialized cores are far more impactful. The RTX 3050 OEM also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5500 XT is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), a key feature difference for next-generation game support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous, showing the RTX 3050 OEM winning all nine head-to-head tests. The largest margin is in Passmark DirectX 11, where the NVIDIA card scores 86 compared to the RX 5500 XT's 56, a 53.6% advantage. This is a massive lead in a widely used gaming API. Following closely is the Passmark DirectX 12 test, where the RTX 3050 OEM scores 58 against the AMD card's 40, a 45% delta. These two results alone suggest that the RTX 3050 OEM will provide a significantly smoother experience in both older and current-generation games.

In synthetic and compute benchmarks, the lead is consistent. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the RTX 3050 OEM is 60740, versus 46965 for the RX 5500 XT, a 29.3% margin. Similarly, the Geekbench Vulkan score shows the NVIDIA card at 57103 against 44191, a 29.2% lead. The Passmark G3D score, which is a broad measure of gaming performance, shows the RTX 3050 OEM at 11857 versus 9083 for the AMD card, a 30.5% advantage. Even in the compute-specific Passmark GPU Compute test, the RTX 3050 OEM is 30% ahead, scoring 5779 to the RX 5500 XT's 4446. The only test where the gap narrows to near-parity is the legacy Passmark DirectX 9 benchmark, where the scores are 137 and 133, respectively, a marginal 3% difference that suggests the RX 5500 XT can hold its own in very old software. The 2D performance also favors NVIDIA, with a Passmark G2D score of 973 versus 774, a 25.7% difference.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM has a higher average benchmark score of 15199, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT's 14692.

Q: What is the most significant performance difference between the two cards?

A: The most significant difference is in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, where the RTX 3050 OEM scores 86 versus the RX 5500 XT's 56, representing a 53.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT support hardware ray tracing?

A: No, the RX 5500 XT has no ray tracing cores, while the RTX 3050 OEM includes 18 dedicated RT cores.

Q: In which test does the RX 5500 XT come closest to matching the RTX 3050 OEM?

A: The closest result is in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where the RX 5500 XT scores 133 against the RTX 3050 OEM's 137, a narrow 3% gap.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 5500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on the same 128-bit bus. Both have a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of process node and foundry?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM is built on an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the RX 5500 XT is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the superior graphics card in nearly every conceivable performance metric. With a 100% win rate in the head-to-head benchmarks and a higher average benchmark score, it is the obvious choice for any user prioritizing raw performance, modern API support, and hardware features like ray tracing. The RTX 3050 OEM’s lead in DirectX 12 and Vulkan benchmarks, coupled with its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, makes it the forward-looking option for gaming and content creation. The RX 5500 XT, while not without merit in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and offering a much shorter physical length for space-constrained builds, cannot match the NVIDIA card's overall capability. For a user building a new system or upgrading an old one, the RTX 3050 OEM is the only rational choice from a performance standpoint, as the RX 5500 XT offers no performance advantage anywhere in the data.

Specification Differences

The following table details the key specifications where the two cards differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 12,000 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 158 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1515 MHz | 1607 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1755 MHz | 1845 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 1717 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1408 |

| TMUs | 72 | 88 |

| RT Cores | 18 | N/A |

| Tensor Cores | 72 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 56.16 GPixel/s | 59.04 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 126.4 GTexel/s | 162.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS | 5.196 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 242 mm (9.5 inches) | 180 mm (7.1 inches) |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2019-12-11 |