AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 than the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RTX 5050 scores 90,334 versus 19,549 for the Vega M GL, a delta of -78.4% from the AMD part’s perspective. That means NVIDIA’s card is roughly 4.6 times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The data lists two head-to-head tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — and the RTX 5050 wins both. The Vega M GL has zero wins in this dataset.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The Vega M GL averages 21,153, while the RTX 5050 averages 21,035. The deltaPct from the NVIDIA card’s view is -0.6%, meaning the AMD part is 0.6% higher on average — a statistical tie.

Q: How do the two cards compare in transistor density?

A: The RTX 5050 packs 113.4 million transistors per mm² on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the Vega M GL achieves 24.0 million per mm² on 14 nm GlobalFoundries. That is a 4.7-fold density advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: What API feature levels does each card support?

A: The Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more shading units, and by how many?

A: The RTX 5050 has 2,560 shading units, exactly double the Vega M GL’s 1,280. Both have 80 texture mapping units and 32 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL is built on the Polaris 22 chip using GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm node at TSMC. This is a generational leap of two full architecture families and a node shrink of nearly three process generations.

The transistor counts tell a stark story. The Vega M GL contains 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, yielding a density of 24.0 million transistors per mm². The RTX 5050 packs 16,900 million transistors onto a smaller 149 mm² die, achieving 113.4 million per mm². That means NVIDIA fits 3.38 times more transistors in 72% of the silicon area. The density difference explains why the newer card can offer far more compute resources without a proportionally larger physical footprint.

Memory architectures diverge completely. The Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but reaches 320.0 GB/s due to much higher memory clocks — 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) versus 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective). The NVIDIA card has double the capacity and 78.6% more bandwidth despite an 8x narrower bus.

The RTX 5050 introduces dedicated hardware that the Vega M GL lacks entirely: 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores. These enable features outside the GCN 4.0 feature set. The Vega M GL has no equivalent units, marking a functional difference beyond raw throughput.

Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The Vega M GL runs at 931 MHz base and 1011 MHz boost. The RTX 5050 operates at 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost — more than double the AMD card’s boost clock. This clock advantage compounds with the 2x shading unit count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two head-to-head results are lopsided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5050 posts 90,334 against the Vega M GL’s 19,549, a delta of -78.4% for AMD. This is a 4.62x performance gap in a compute-oriented test. The Vega M GL’s FP32 throughput of 2.588 TFLOPS versus the RTX 5050’s 13.17 TFLOPS — a 5.09x difference — provides the theoretical basis for this result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows slightly but remains decisive. The RTX 5050 scores 89,381 while the Vega M GL scores 22,757, a delta of -74.5%. The RTX 5050 is 3.93x faster in this graphics API workload. The Vulkan result shows the NVIDIA card’s advantage is consistent across both compute and graphics-oriented APIs, not an artifact of a single test methodology.

Looking at the average benchmark scores from the nearestRivals data, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Vega M GL averages 21,153, while the RTX 5050 averages 21,035. The AMD card is 0.6% higher in this aggregate metric, and it also sits 0.4% below the AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21,237) and 1.1% below the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379). The RTX 5050, meanwhile, is 1% below the HD 8970M and 1.6% below the RTX A4000 Mobile.

The paradox is clear: the RTX 5050 crushes the Vega M GL in every individual head-to-head test by margins of 74-78%, yet the aggregate averages are nearly identical. This suggests the Vega M GL’s two benchmark scores (19,549 and 22,757) are not representative of its average performance across a broader test suite, or that the RTX 5050’s ten benchmarks include several low outliers. The PassMark scores for the RTX 5050 show a wide spread: 17,326 in G3D, 9,184 in GPU Compute, but only 103 in DirectX 10, 150 in DirectX 11, and 66 in DirectX 12. Those low DirectX scores drag down its average.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 5,000 million | 16,900 million |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 149 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.0M / mm² | 113.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 931 MHz | 2317 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1011 MHz | 2572 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) | 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 1024 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1280 | 2560 |

| Texture Units | 80 | 80 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| RT Cores | — | 20 |

| Tensor Cores | — | 80 |

| Pixel Rate | 32.35 GPixel/s | 82.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 80.88 GTexel/s | 205.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.588 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) | 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 65 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | — | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | — | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.1b3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

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

| Release Date | 2018-01-31 | 2025-06-30 |

| Predecessor | — | GeForce 40 |

| Successor | — | GeForce 60 |

The texture units and ROPs are identical at 80 and 32, respectively. This means the Vega M GL’s 80.88 GTexel/s texture rate is purely a function of its lower clock speed, while the RTX 5050 achieves 205.8 GTexel/s. Similarly, pixel rates of 32.35 GPixel/s versus 82.30 GPixel/s reflect the clock gap, not a difference in ROP count.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5050 wins decisively in every measured head-to-head benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 90,334 score represents a 4.62x advantage over the Vega M GL. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 89,381 result is 3.93x higher. These are not marginal wins; they are generational gaps in raw compute and graphics throughput.

The RTX 5050 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 8 GB GDDR6 with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 4 GB HBM2 with 179.2 GB/s means it can handle larger textures and data sets while moving data faster. For modern workloads that exceed 4 GB of video memory, the Vega M GL simply cannot participate.

The Vega M GL’s only statistical advantage appears in the aggregate average benchmark score, where its 21,153 exceeds the RTX 5050’s 21,035 by 0.6%. This is within noise and likely reflects the RTX 5050’s low PassMark DirectX scores (66-186) dragging its average down. The AMD card also has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 130 W, making it more power-efficient in absolute terms, though this comes with far lower performance.

For ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, the RTX 5050 has an unanswerable advantage: it has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, while the Vega M GL has none. Any application using hardware ray tracing or tensor operations will only run on the NVIDIA card.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 is the superior performer in every direct comparison. Its 4.62x OpenCL and 3.93x Vulkan advantages over the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL are not subtle. The RTX 5050 doubles the shading units, more than doubles the boost clock, offers 5.09x the FP32 throughput, and provides hardware ray tracing and tensor cores that the Vega M GL entirely lacks.

The Vega M GL’s 0.6% higher average benchmark score (21,153 vs 21,035) is the only metric in its favor, and it is likely an artifact of the RTX 5050’s unusually low PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores (66-186) compared to its PassMark G3D score of 17,326. A user relying on the average alone might mistake these cards as equals; the head-to-head results show they are not.

Users should choose the RTX 5050 if they need any of the following: modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features, Vulkan 1.4 support, 8 GB of memory, bandwidth above 179.2 GB/s, ray tracing, tensor core acceleration, or performance above 2.588 TFLOPS FP32. This covers essentially every contemporary gaming, rendering, or compute use case.

The Vega M GL is end-of-life, released in January 2018, while the RTX 5050 is an active product released in June 2025. The older card is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 65 W TDP and no power connectors, suited only to systems where the RTX 5050’s dual-slot design and 8-pin connector are not viable. Its 4 GB HBM2 memory and 179.2 GB/s bandwidth are respectable for its era, but the 14 nm GCN architecture cannot compete with 5 nm Blackwell in any measured workload.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX 5050 is the pick for anyone who can accommodate its power and slot requirements. The Vega M GL remains relevant only for legacy systems or ultra-low-power designs where integrated graphics are a hard constraint.