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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably one-sided comparison. Across all nine head-to-head benchmark tests, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM claims victory, with zero wins for the AMD Radeon RX 5500M. The margins, however, vary considerably by workload, which makes the pattern worth examining closely.

The largest single gap appears in the Passmark GPU Compute test, where the RTX 3050 OEM scores 5779 against 2316 for the RX 5500M, a 149.5% advantage. This is a compute-heavy workload, and the result strongly suggests that the NVIDIA architecture handles raw parallel processing far more efficiently. A similar story emerges in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, with the RTX 3050 OEM reaching 86 versus 35, a 145.7% lead. That is more than double the score, indicating a substantial performance-per-clock advantage in a widely used legacy API.

The DirectX 12 test also shows a decisive result: 58 versus 28, a 107.1% difference. Modern API scaling matters here, and the RTX 3050 OEM doubles the RX 5500M output. The Passmark G3D test, often treated as a general gaming proxy, shows the RTX 3050 OEM at 11857 against 5848, a 102.8% margin. In practical terms, this implies that for the same workload, the NVIDIA card delivers roughly twice the frames in synthetic DirectX scenarios.

The compute-oriented Geekbench tests reinforce the pattern. In OpenCL, the RTX 3050 OEM scores 60740 versus 38725, a 56.8% lead. In Vulkan, the gap is 60%, with scores of 57103 and 35693 respectively. These are not small edges; they represent a consistent and significant performance advantage across different compute frameworks.

Even the less demanding tests show clear NVIDIA superiority. The DirectX 10 test shows 61 versus 39, a 56.4% lead. The DirectX 9 test shows 137 versus 100, a 37% margin. The smallest relative gap is in DirectX 9, yet even here the RTX 3050 OEM holds a comfortable lead. The Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics and basic desktop operations, shows 973 versus 414, a 135% difference. That result is striking because it suggests the NVIDIA card is not only faster in 3D but also in simpler 2D rasterization tasks.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The RTX 3050 OEM posts an average score of 15199, while the RX 5500M averages 13356. That is a difference of roughly 13.8% in the overall average, which is more modest than the individual test deltas. The reason is that the average includes all recorded benchmarks, some of which may weight differently. Still, the trend is unambiguous.

The percentile rankings are close: the RTX 3050 OEM sits at the 57th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5500M sits at the 54th. This means both are mid-range parts, but the NVIDIA card is slightly higher in the overall distribution. The nearest rivals for the RTX 3050 OEM include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 (0.2% higher average score), the AMD Radeon 680M (0.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 (0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 (0.6% lower). The RX 5500M, by contrast, sits near the AMD FirePro M6100 (0% difference) and the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (0.1% lower). This places the two cards in different performance tiers despite their close percentile ranks.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures could not be more different. The RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip based on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The die measures 276 mm² and contains 12,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip based on AMD's RDNA 1.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Its die is significantly smaller at 158 mm², with 6,400 million transistors, giving a density of 40.5 million per mm².

The compute resources differ sharply. The RTX 3050 OEM has 2304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. It also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, which are absent entirely from the RX 5500M. The RX 5500M has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The shading unit count is nearly 64% higher on the NVIDIA card, while the AMD card has more TMUs (88 versus 72). The ROP count is identical at 32.

Clock speeds show a different balance. The RTX 3050 OEM has a base clock of 1515 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz. The RX 5500M has a base clock of 1375 MHz, a game clock of 1448 MHz, and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The NVIDIA card runs at higher frequencies across the board, which combined with the larger shader array explains much of the performance gap.

Memory configurations are similar in bus width but not in capacity. Both use GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. However, the RTX 3050 OEM has 8 GB of VRAM, while the RX 5500M has only 4 GB. This is a critical difference for modern games and textures, where 4 GB is often insufficient. The memory clock is identical at 1750 MHz, which translates to 14 Gbps effective on both cards.

The pixel rate is close: 56.16 GPixel/s for the RTX 3050 OEM versus 52.64 GPixel/s for the RX 5500M. The texture rate, however, favors the AMD card: 144.8 GTexel/s versus 126.4 GTexel/s. This is because the RX 5500M has more TMUs, even though its clocks are lower. The FP32 throughput is decisively in NVIDIA's favor: 8.087 TFLOPS versus 4.632 TFLOPS. The FP16 numbers are interesting: the RTX 3050 OEM offers 8.087 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 5500M offers 9.265 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD card actually has higher FP16 throughput, but this is unlikely to benefit most gaming workloads.

The power envelopes differ substantially. The RTX 3050 OEM has a TDP of 130 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and uses no external power connectors, which is typical for a mobile part. The process node difference is notable: 8 nm for NVIDIA versus 7 nm for AMD. Despite the smaller process, the AMD card consumes less power, but it also delivers significantly lower performance.

API support shows a gap in DirectX version. The RTX 3050 OEM supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The ray tracing and tensor cores on the NVIDIA card enable features that the AMD card cannot match, including hardware-accelerated ray tracing and DLSS-style AI processing.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the RTX 3050 OEM wins every single benchmark category. There is no test in which the RX 5500M comes out ahead. That said, the relative margins suggest where the NVIDIA card is strongest and where the AMD card is least far behind.

The biggest wins for the RTX 3050 OEM are in compute-heavy workloads. The Passmark GPU Compute test shows a 149.5% lead, and the DirectX 11 test shows 145.7%. These are workloads that stress raw shader throughput and parallel execution. The RTX 3050 OEM's 2304 shading units and higher clocks simply overwhelm the RX 5500M's 1408 shading units.

The DirectX 12 test shows a 107.1% lead, which is notable because modern engines increasingly rely on this API. The Passmark G3D test shows a 102.8% lead, reinforcing the gaming-oriented advantage. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests show 56.8% and 60% leads respectively, which are substantial but slightly smaller than the Passmark deltas.

The smallest win for the RTX 3050 OEM is in DirectX 9, where the lead is 37%. This is still a clear victory, but it suggests that older or simpler workloads narrow the gap. The RX 5500M's higher texture rate (144.8 GTexel/s versus 126.4 GTexel/s) may help in texture-bound scenarios, even if the overall score remains lower.

For the RX 5500M, the most competitive areas are the legacy DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 tests, as well as the Geekbench OpenCL test. But even in those cases, the NVIDIA card holds a comfortable margin. The RX 5500M does not win a single category, so any use case that relies on the GPU for rendering or compute will favor the RTX 3050 OEM.

The architecture differences explain why the RX 5500M cannot close the gap. With fewer shading units, lower clocks, and no ray tracing or tensor cores, it is structurally disadvantaged. The only area where it matches the NVIDIA card is memory bandwidth, which is identical at 224.0 GB/s. But bandwidth alone cannot compensate for a 75% lower FP32 throughput.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM is the faster card in every recorded benchmark. The average score of 15199 versus 13356 places it well ahead of the RX 5500M in overall performance. The percentile ranks, 57 versus 54, confirm that the NVIDIA card sits higher in the global GPU distribution.

For gaming, the RTX 3050 OEM is the clear choice. The DirectX 12 and DirectX 11 leads of 107.1% and 145.7% respectively mean that modern titles will run substantially faster. The 8 GB VRAM versus 4 GB also matters for texture-heavy games and future titles that exceed 4 GB usage. The RX 5500M has no benchmark where it wins, so there is no scenario where it offers better gaming performance.

For compute workloads, the RTX 3050 OEM is also superior. The Passmark GPU Compute lead of 149.5% and the Geekbench OpenCL lead of 56.8% show that the NVIDIA card handles parallel processing far more efficiently. The presence of tensor cores and ray tracing cores adds capabilities that the RX 5500M lacks entirely, even if specific benchmark scores for those features are not recorded here.

The RX 5500M does have one advantage: power consumption. At 85 W TDP versus 130 W, it draws significantly less power and requires no external power connector. This makes it suitable for thinner laptops or systems with limited power delivery. But for performance, the RTX 3050 OEM is the better part in every measured category.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof purchase. But among these two, the RTX 3050 OEM is the stronger option. The release dates are far apart, with the RX 5500M launching in late 2019 and the RTX 3050 OEM in early 2022. The newer architecture and higher transistor count give the NVIDIA card a decisive edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM. Its FP32 throughput is 8.087 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon RX 5500M delivers 4.632 TFLOPS. The Geekbench OpenCL scores also favor NVIDIA, 60740 versus 38725.

Q: Does the RX 5500M win any benchmark tests?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the RX 5500M across all nine head-to-head tests. The RTX 3050 OEM wins every test, with margins ranging from 37% in DirectX 9 to 149.5% in GPU compute.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

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

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores. The RX 5500M has no ray tracing or tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM has a TDP of 130 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector. The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and uses no external power connectors.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM sits within 0.6% of the RTX 2060, GTX 580, and AMD 680M in average score. The RX 5500M sits within 0.4% of the AMD FirePro M6100, Radeon HD 8950M, and Radeon Pro 555X.

Specification Differences

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

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

| 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 | 1375 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1755 MHz | 1645 MHz |

| Game clock | N/A | 1448 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Shading units | 2304 | 1408 |

| Texture mapping units | 72 | 88 |

| Ray tracing cores | 18 | None |

| Tensor cores | 72 | None |

| Pixel rate | 56.16 GPixel/s | 52.64 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 126.4 GTexel/s | 144.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 8.087 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 8.087 TFLOPS (1:1) | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 130 W | 85 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | N/A |

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

| Release date | 2022-01-03 | 2019-10-06 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 20 | Polaris Mobile |

| Successor | GeForce 40 | N/A |