NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile vs NVIDIA N1X 48SM Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile and the NVIDIA N1X 48SM represent two distinct approaches in NVIDIA’s mobile GPU lineup. The RTX 4050 Mobile is an established Ada Lovelace part aimed at mainstream laptops, while the N1X 48SM is a Blackwell 2.0 IGP with a radically different memory configuration. The recorded data indicates that the N1X 48SM offers substantially higher raw compute throughput, but the RTX 4050 Mobile has the benefit of a mature driver stack and actual benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: What is the performance percentile of the RTX 4050 Mobile compared to all GPUs in the database?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile sits at the 63rd percentile across all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 19049. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 6600, scores 19036, placing the RTX 4050 Mobile just 0.1% ahead.

Q: Does the N1X 48SM have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The N1X 48SM has an empty benchmarks array and an average benchmark score of 0. Its percentile is listed at 50, but this is a placeholder value, not derived from measured tests.

Q: What memory capacity does each GPU support?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile uses 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2560 shading units, while the N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units. This is a 2.4x difference in raw shader count.

Q: What is the process node for both chips?

A: Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses the AD107 chip with a die size of 159 mm², while the N1X 48SM uses the GB20B chip with a die size of 382 mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The N1X 48SM has a boost clock of 2346 MHz, compared to the RTX 4050 Mobile’s boost clock of 1755 MHz. However, the RTX 4050 Mobile has a higher base clock at 1455 MHz versus 741 MHz for the N1X 48SM.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4050 Mobile wins in the area of verified, real-world performance. Its benchmark suite includes results from Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, as well as PassMark tests across DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and compute workloads. The data shows a PassMark G3D score of 14423 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 75235, indicating that this GPU is fully operational and measured. The N1X 48SM has no such measurements, so its actual performance in these tests remains unverified.

The N1X 48SM wins on raw theoretical specifications. Its FP32 throughput is 28.83 TFLOPS, which is 3.2x higher than the RTX 4050 Mobile’s 8.986 TFLOPS. Texture rate also favors the N1X 48SM at 900.9 GTexel/s versus 140.4 GTexel/s. The memory subsystem is another clear advantage: 128 GB of LPDDR5X versus 6 GB of GDDR6, with bandwidth at 273.2 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

For use cases that depend on massive memory capacity, such as large dataset handling or high-resolution asset loading, the N1X 48SM is the clear choice. For applications that require proven driver compatibility and existing software support, the RTX 4050 Mobile has the advantage.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4050 Mobile is built on the Ada Lovelace architecture using the AD107 chip. This architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, which are dedicated to ray tracing and AI acceleration respectively. The chip has a transistor count of 18,900 million on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm².

The N1X 48SM is built on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture using the GB20B chip. This architecture is designated as part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. The API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which suggests that the software stack for this GPU is either incomplete or not yet exposed through standard APIs. The N1X 48SM has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, which are higher counts than the RTX 4050 Mobile. The die size is 382 mm², which is 2.4x larger than the AD107 chip.

Both chips are fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process, so the architectural differences come down to core layout and feature support rather than process technology. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a higher base clock but lower boost clock, while the N1X 48SM has a very low base clock of 741 MHz that ramps to 2346 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 4050 Mobile has 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The N1X 48SM has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The TMU count is 4.8x higher on the N1X 48SM, while the ROP count is identical at 48.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The RTX 4050 Mobile runs at a base of 1455 MHz and boost of 1755 MHz. The N1X 48SM runs at a base of 741 MHz and boost of 2346 MHz. The boost clock advantage of the N1X 48SM is 591 MHz, but the base clock is 714 MHz lower.

Memory specifications are also distinct. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses 6 GB of GDDR6 at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, across a 96-bit bus. The N1X 48SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective speed, across a 256-bit bus. The bus width is 2.67x wider on the N1X 48SM, and total bandwidth is 273.2 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s.

The bus interface differs as well. The RTX 4050 Mobile uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the N1X 48SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a TDP of 50 W, while the N1X 48SM has an unknown TDP.

Pixel rate favors the N1X 48SM at 112.6 GPixel/s versus 84.24 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the N1X 48SM at 900.9 GTexel/s versus 140.4 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 28.83 TFLOPS for the N1X 48SM, versus 8.986 TFLOPS for the RTX 4050 Mobile.

The RTX 4050 Mobile was released on 2023-01-02, while the N1X 48SM has a release date of 2026-05-31. The RTX 4050 Mobile has a predecessor in the GeForce 30 Mobile series and a successor in the GeForce 50 Mobile series, while the N1X 48SM has neither listed. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the RTX 4050 Mobile, versus 1x HDMI for the N1X 48SM.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the RTX 4050 Mobile and the N1X 48SM. The head-to-head benchmarks array is empty, and neither GPU has recorded win counts in this pairing. This means the comparison must rely on the individual benchmark results where available and the theoretical specifications for the N1X 48SM.

For the RTX 4050 Mobile, the recorded benchmark scores are as follows: Geekbench OpenCL scores 74748, Geekbench Vulkan scores 75235, PassMark DirectX 10 scores 79, DirectX 11 scores 130, DirectX 12 scores 61, DirectX 9 scores 184, G2D scores 633, G3D scores 14423, and GPU compute scores 5947. These results place the GPU at the 63rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 19049.

The N1X 48SM has no recorded scores in any of these tests. Therefore, the largest wins in each direction are by default. The RTX 4050 Mobile wins on all measured benchmarks because it is the only GPU with measurements. The N1X 48SM wins on all theoretical specification comparisons, including FP32 throughput (28.83 TFLOPS versus 8.986 TFLOPS), memory bandwidth (273.2 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s), and memory capacity (128 GB versus 6 GB).

The nearest rivals for the RTX 4050 Mobile provide context for its measured performance. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 scores 19036, which is 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA Quadro K6000 scores 19030, also 0.1% lower. The NVIDIA Tesla K20m scores 19089, which is 0.2% higher. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation scores 18954, which is 0.5% lower. These deltas are all within a narrow band, indicating that the RTX 4050 Mobile sits in a competitive performance tier.

The specification gap between the two GPUs is substantial in favor of the N1X 48SM, but without benchmark data, the actual delivered performance cannot be quantified. The RTX 4050 Mobile’s measured results show a functional GPU with scores that place it in the upper half of all GPUs. The N1X 48SM’s theoretical advantages in shader count, memory, and clock speed suggest it could deliver significantly higher performance once software support matures, but this remains unverified in the current database.