NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark scoring?

A: The average benchmark score for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile is 19,049, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER records an average score of 3,075. The 4050 Mobile sits in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, whereas the 5080 SUPER ranks in the 19th percentile.

Q: What are the nearest competitors for each card according to the database?

A: For the RTX 4050 Mobile, the closest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6600 (19,036, 0.1% slower), NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (19,030, 0.1% slower), NVIDIA Tesla K20m (19,089, 0.2% faster), and NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, 0.5% slower). For the RTX 5080 SUPER, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 (3,163, 2.8% faster), NVIDIA GeForce 820A (2,983, 3.1% slower), Intel Arc Pro B60 (3,182, 3.4% faster), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M (2,967, 3.6% slower).

Q: Which card has more memory and what type?

A: The RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 256-bit bus with 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two cards?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors. The RTX 5080 SUPER has a TDP of 415 W, a dual-slot width, and requires a 1x 16-pin power connector.

Q: Do both cards support the same API feature levels?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The underlying architectures differ, but the API compatibility is identical.

Q: What is the release timing for each product?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile was released on 2023-01-02, while the RTX 5080 SUPER has a release date of 2025-12-31.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile uses the AD107 chip built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the GeForce 40 Mobile generation. The RTX 5080 SUPER uses the GB203 chip built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 50 generation. Both are manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, though the transistor counts diverge sharply: the AD107 packs 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, while the GB203 contains 45,600 million transistors on a 378 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 118.9M per mm² for the 4050 Mobile and 120.6M per mm² for the 5080 SUPER.

The shading unit count scales with the larger chip. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2,560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 10,752 shading units, 336 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Ray tracing cores jump from 20 on the AD107 to 84 on the GB203. Tensor cores scale from 80 to 336. These are not incremental changes; the 5080 SUPER multiplies the compute resources of the 4050 Mobile by roughly four times across most functional blocks.

Clock speeds also separate the two parts. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a base clock of 1455 MHz and a boost clock of 1755 MHz. The RTX 5080 SUPER runs at a base clock of 2295 MHz and boosts to 2617 MHz. Memory clocks differ in type rather than raw frequency: both list a memory clock of 2000 MHz, but the 4050 Mobile uses GDDR6 with 16 Gbps effective transfer, while the 5080 SUPER uses GDDR7 with 32 Gbps effective transfer.

The bus interface differs as well. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX 5080 SUPER uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs on the 4050 Mobile are described as portable device dependent, whereas the 5080 SUPER provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b connectors. Physical dimensions are another differentiator: the 5080 SUPER measures 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the 4050 Mobile has no listed dimensions due to its mobile form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct comparison data between these two GPUs is limited in the database. No head-to-head benchmark entries exist, and the win counts are zero for both cards. The available benchmark suites are not shared between the two products, which complicates a straightforward performance ranking.

The RTX 4050 Mobile has a substantial benchmark portfolio. In Geekbench OpenCL it scores 74,748, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 75,235. The Passmark suite shows scores of 79 for DirectX 10, 130 for DirectX 11, 61 for DirectX 12, and 184 for DirectX 9. The Passmark G2D score is 633, the G3D score is 14,423, and the GPU compute score is 5,947. These figures place the 4050 Mobile in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 19,049.

The RTX 5080 SUPER has only one recorded benchmark in the database: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,075. Its average benchmark score is therefore 3,075, placing it in the 19th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rival data for the 5080 SUPER shows performance comparable to much older or lower-tier hardware. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 3,163, which is 2.8% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce 820A scores 2,983, which is 3.1% lower. The Intel Arc Pro B60 scores 3,182, which is 3.4% higher, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M scores 2,967, which is 3.6% lower.

Interpreting these numbers requires caution. The 4050 Mobile's average score of 19,049 is approximately six times higher than the 5080 SUPER's average of 3,075. However, the benchmark sets are not identical. The 4050 Mobile was tested across nine different workloads spanning OpenCL, Vulkan, and multiple DirectX versions. The 5080 SUPER has only a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result. The database records do not provide a common workload on which both cards were evaluated.

The percentile rankings reflect this discrepancy. The 4050 Mobile at the 63rd percentile sits above the median GPU, while the 5080 SUPER at the 19th percentile sits well below it. Based on the recorded data, the 4050 Mobile delivers the higher overall performance in the benchmarks it was subjected to. The 5080 SUPER's single score is not directly comparable to any of the 4050 Mobile's results due to the lack of overlapping test entries.

Specification Differences

The memory configuration differs across every parameter. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6, a 96-bit bus, and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5080 SUPER has 24 GB of GDDR7, a 256-bit bus, and 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The bandwidth difference is more than fivefold.

Compute resources differ by roughly four times across the board. Shading units: 2,560 versus 10,752. TMUs: 80 versus 336. ROPs: 48 versus 112. Ray tracing cores: 20 versus 84. Tensor cores: 80 versus 336. The FP32 throughput is 8.986 TFLOPS on the 4050 Mobile versus 56.28 TFLOPS on the 5080 SUPER. FP16 throughput matches the FP32 ratio, with both cards running 1:1.

Clock speeds are higher on the 5080 SUPER. Base clock is 1455 MHz versus 2295 MHz, and boost clock is 1755 MHz versus 2617 MHz. Pixel rate climbs from 84.24 GPixel/s to 293.1 GPixel/s, and texture rate climbs from 140.4 GTexel/s to 879.3 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics are entirely different. The 4050 Mobile has a 50 W TDP, IGP slot width, and no power connectors. The 5080 SUPER has a 415 W TDP, dual-slot width, and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The bus interface moves from PCIe 4.0 x8 to PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs move from portable device dependent to 1x HDMI 2.1b plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. The 5080 SUPER has published dimensions of 304 mm by 137 mm by 40 mm, while the 4050 Mobile lists none.

Transistor counts and die sizes also differ. The AD107 chip has 18,900 million transistors on 159 mm², while the GB203 has 45,600 million transistors on 378 mm². Transistor density is similar, at 118.9M per mm² versus 120.6M per mm². The launch MSRP for the 5080 SUPER is 999 USD; the 4050 Mobile has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Mobile wins on the basis of recorded benchmark performance. Its average benchmark score of 19,049 places it in the 63rd percentile, and its nearest rivals are all within 0.5% of its score, indicating a competitive but solidly mid-range position. The card's nine benchmark results span multiple API generations and compute workloads, showing balanced performance across OpenCL, Vulkan, and DirectX 9 through 12. Its low 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for compact, portable implementations where power delivery is constrained.

The RTX 5080 SUPER wins on raw architectural resources. It carries 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, 10,752 shading units, 84 ray tracing cores, and 336 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput of 56.28 TFLOPS is more than six times that of the 4050 Mobile. The 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth and 256-bit bus provide the data throughput needed to feed those compute units. The card's 293.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 879.3 GTexel/s texture rate indicate substantial fill-rate capacity. Its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and dedicated display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b) make it a desktop-oriented part with full connectivity.

The 4050 Mobile also wins on efficiency metrics. Its transistor density is slightly lower (118.9M per mm² versus 120.6M per mm²), but its 50 W TDP is dramatically smaller than the 5080 SUPER's 415 W. The 4050 Mobile's boost clock of 1755 MHz and 8.986 TFLOPS FP32 rating deliver a usable level of performance within a power envelope that the 5080 SUPER cannot approach.

The 5080 SUPER wins on generation and interface modernity. It belongs to the GeForce 50 generation with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, while the 4050 Mobile belongs to the GeForce 40 Mobile generation with Ada Lovelace. The 5080 SUPER supports PCIe 5.0 x16 versus the 4050 Mobile's PCIe 4.0 x8. The memory technology is newer as well: GDDR7 versus GDDR6.

Based on the database's measured results, the 4050 Mobile demonstrates higher achieved performance in the tests recorded. The 5080 SUPER's single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,075 is the only data point for that card, and it does not compare favorably to the 4050 Mobile's portfolio. The architectural advantages of the 5080 SUPER are clear on paper, but the recorded benchmark data does not confirm them in practice. The two cards target different segments: the 4050 Mobile as a mobile solution with modest power draw, and the 5080 SUPER as a high-power desktop part with maximum resource counts.