NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RTX 5050 has recorded benchmark scores across multiple suites, while the RTX 5090 SE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This makes a direct performance comparison impossible from measured data. The RTX 5050 achieves an average benchmark score of 21,035 across its tested workloads, placing it in the 66th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL at 21,153 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8970M at 21,237 (1% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT at 20,713 (1.6% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile at 21,379 (1.6% ahead). These deltas show the RTX 5050 sits in a tightly contested performance band, within roughly 2% of its closest competitors in aggregate scoring.

In individual tests, the RTX 5050 records its strongest result in Geekbench OpenCL with 90,334 points and Geekbench Vulkan with 89,381 points. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test yields 2,502 points. Passmark results show 17,326 in G3D, 9,184 in GPU compute, 1,113 in G2D, and legacy DirectX scores of 186 (DX9), 150 (DX11), 103 (DX10), and 66 (DX12). The RTX 5090 SE, by contrast, has zero recorded scores in every benchmark category, so no delta percentages or win counts can be established between the two cards. The data indicates the 5050 is a measured, active product, whereas the 5090 SE appears in the database without any validated performance entries.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the Blackwell 2.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process, but they diverge dramatically in chip design. The RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip with 16,900 million transistors on a 149 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 113.4M per mm². The RTX 5090 SE uses the GB202 chip with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a density of 122.9M per mm². The 5090 SE packs over five times the transistor count and roughly five times the die area, with a higher density indicating more efficient packing of logic and memory controllers.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The RTX 5050 runs a base clock of 2317 MHz and a boost clock of 2572 MHz. The RTX 5090 SE runs a lower base clock of 1740 MHz but a boost clock of 2377 MHz. Despite the lower clock speeds, the 5090 SE delivers vastly higher throughput because of its much larger execution resource pool. Memory configurations are completely different: the 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2500 MHz memory clock (20 Gbps effective). The 5090 SE uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (28 Gbps effective). The 5090 SE has over four times the bandwidth and three times the capacity.

Compute resources show the scale of the gap. The RTX 5050 has 2,560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The RTX 5090 SE has 14,080 shading units, 440 TMUs, 160 ROPs, 110 RT cores, and 440 tensor cores. That is 5.5 times the shading units, 5.5 times the TMUs, 5 times the ROPs, 5.5 times the RT cores, and 5.5 times the tensor cores. Pixel rate for the 5050 is 82.30 GPixel/s versus 380.3 GPixel/s for the 5090 SE, a 4.6 times difference. Texture rate is 205.8 GTexel/s versus 1,045.9 GTexel/s, a 5.1 times difference. FP32 and FP16 performance are both 13.17 TFLOPS for the 5050 and 66.94 TFLOPS for the 5090 SE, a 5.1 times difference.

Power delivery and interface also differ. The RTX 5050 has a TDP of 130 W with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RTX 5090 SE has a TDP of 500 W with a 1x 16-pin connector and a suggested PSU of 900 W. The 5090 SE uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8. Both cards are dual-slot and have identical display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the 5090 SE: 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5050 wins in the only category where measured data exists: actual benchmark performance. It has recorded scores in ten different tests, an average score of 21,035, and a 66th percentile ranking among all GPUs. It also wins on efficiency per watt in the sense that it delivers measurable performance at a 130 W TDP, compared to the 5090 SE's 500 W TDP. The 5050 requires only a 300 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector, making it compatible with a wider range of power supplies. Its smaller die (149 mm² versus 750 mm²) and lower transistor count (16,900 million versus 92,200 million) indicate lower manufacturing complexity and potentially broader availability.

The RTX 5090 SE wins on every raw specification category. It has more memory (24 GB versus 8 GB), faster memory type (GDDR7 versus GDDR6), wider bus (384-bit versus 128-bit), and higher bandwidth (1.34 TB/s versus 320.0 GB/s). It has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, and tensor cores. Its FP32 compute of 66.94 TFLOPS is over five times the 5050's 13.17 TFLOPS. Its texture rate and pixel rate are similarly multiples of the 5050's figures. The 5090 SE also uses a full PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the 5050's x8 link, which matters for data transfer in bandwidth-intensive workloads. The 5090 SE's physical dimensions are larger, which indicates a more substantial cooling solution is required, but the database records no thermal or acoustic measurements.

The 5090 SE also wins on release timing, with a recorded release date of 2025-12-31 versus 2025-06-30 for the 5050. Both cards are listed as Active in production status, and both share the same predecessor (GeForce 40) and successor (GeForce 60) generations. The 5090 SE has a higher transistor density (122.9M per mm² versus 113.4M per mm²), suggesting a more advanced design within the same 5 nm process node.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RTX 5090 SE has FP32 performance of 66.94 TFLOPS, which is approximately 5.1 times the 13.17 TFLOPS of the RTX 5050. It also has 14,080 shading units versus 2,560, and 440 TMUs versus 80.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5090 SE uses 24 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth, which is over four times the bandwidth and three times the capacity.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the RTX 5090 SE?

A: No. The database records zero benchmark scores for the RTX 5090 SE across all test suites. The RTX 5050 has scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests.

Q: What power supply is recommended for each card?

A: The RTX 5050 has a TDP of 130 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W and a 1x 8-pin power connector. The RTX 5090 SE has a TDP of 500 W with a suggested PSU of 900 W and a 1x 16-pin connector.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process. However, the RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip (16,900 million transistors, 149 mm²) while the RTX 5090 SE uses the GB202 chip (92,200 million transistors, 750 mm²).

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RTX 5050 is in the 66th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 21,035. The RTX 5090 SE has a 50th percentile ranking and an average score of 0, reflecting its lack of recorded benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but incomplete picture. The RTX 5050 is a fully measured product with verified performance across ten benchmarks, an average score of 21,035, and a 66th percentile standing. Its nearest rivals are all within roughly 2% of its aggregate score, indicating competitive placement in its segment. The RTX 5090 SE has no recorded benchmark results, so its actual performance cannot be validated from the database. What the specifications show is a product with 5.5 times the shading units, 5.5 times the tensor cores, 5 times the ROPs, 5.1 times the FP32 throughput, and 4.2 times the memory bandwidth of the 5050. The 5090 SE also carries a TDP of 500 W, which is 370 W higher than the 5050's 130 W, and requires a 900 W suggested PSU.

For users selecting based on measured data, the RTX 5050 is the only option with confirmed benchmark scores. For users selecting based on peak specification headroom, the RTX 5090 SE offers dramatically larger compute, memory, and bandwidth resources. The 5090 SE's lack of benchmark entries means its real-world standing cannot be quantified, and its 50th percentile ranking with an average score of zero should be interpreted as an absence of data rather than a performance verdict. The RTX 5050's 66th percentile ranking, by contrast, is grounded in actual measurements. The choice depends on whether the priority is verified performance or maximum theoretical capability, and the database currently supports only the former for the 5050.

Specification Differences

| Specification | RTX 5050 | RTX 5090 SE |

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

| Chip | GB207 | GB202 |

| Transistors | 16,900 million | 92,200 million |

| Die Size | 149 mm² | 750 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 113.4M / mm² | 122.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2317 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2572 MHz | 2377 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 320.0 GB/s | 1.34 TB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 2560 | 14080 |

| TMUs | 80 | 440 |

| ROPs | 32 | 160 |

| RT Cores | 20 | 110 |

| Tensor Cores | 80 | 440 |

| Pixel Rate | 82.30 GPixel/s | 380.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 205.8 GTexel/s | 1,045.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 / FP16 | 13.17 TFLOPS | 66.94 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 130 W | 500 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 900 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-06-30 | 2025-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 249 USD | 1,499 USD |

Both cards share the same architecture, foundry, process node, generation, slot width, display outputs, API support, production status, predecessor, and successor.