NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000M represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The RTX 5050, built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture and a 5 nm process, delivers benchmark results that completely eclipse the older Quadro M4000M, which relies on Maxwell 2.0 architecture and a 28 nm process. In the only two head-to-head benchmark tests available—Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan—the RTX 5050 wins both decisively, with deltas of 351.9% and 326.2% respectively. The data indicates a generational leap so substantial that the Quadro M4000M, despite its 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs, cannot compete with the RTX 5050's 66th percentile standing.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 5050 wins every category where direct comparison data exists. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 5050 scores 90,334 against the Quadro M4000M's 19,989, a 351.9% advantage. This massive gap reflects not just raw compute capability but also the architectural efficiency gains from a decade of development. The RTX 5050's FP32 throughput of 13.17 TFLOPS dwarfs the Quadro M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS, a difference that manifests directly in compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX 5050 again dominates with 89,381 points versus 20,971 for the Quadro M4000M, a 326.2% lead. The RTX 5050 supports Vulkan 1.4, same as the Quadro M4000M, but its Blackwell 2.0 architecture with dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores provides capabilities the Maxwell 2.0-based Quadro simply lacks. The Quadro M4000M has no RT cores and no tensor cores, meaning hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads are entirely absent from its feature set.

The RTX 5050 also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 320.0 GB/s through 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, versus the Quadro M4000M's 160.4 GB/s through 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. While the Quadro has a wider bus, the RTX 5050's faster memory clock (2500 MHz versus 1253 MHz) and newer memory technology more than compensate, delivering exactly double the bandwidth.

The Quadro M4000M's strengths, such as they exist, lie in its lower power draw of 100 W compared to the RTX 5050's 130 W TDP, and its MXM Module form factor which suits certain mobile workstation designs. However, these are not performance wins—they are operational characteristics. In every measurable performance metric, the RTX 5050 wins outright.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two GPUs is the defining story. The RTX 5050 uses the GB207 chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 5 nm process. It packs 16,900 million transistors into a 149 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 113.4 million per square millimeter. The Quadro M4000M, by contrast, uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It contains 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, yielding just 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter.

This process advantage translates directly to clock speeds. The RTX 5050 runs at a 2317 MHz base clock and 2572 MHz boost, while the Quadro M4000M manages only 975 MHz base and 1013 MHz boost. The RTX 5050's clocks are more than double the Quadro's, enabled by the dramatically more efficient 5 nm process.

Shader resources tell a similar story. The RTX 5050 has 2560 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro M4000M has half the shading units at 1280, the same 80 TMUs, but double the ROPs at 64. Despite having fewer ROPs, the RTX 5050 achieves a higher pixel rate of 82.30 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s for the Quadro, thanks to its much higher clocks. The texture rate advantage is even more pronounced: 205.8 GTexel/s for the RTX 5050 versus 81.04 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

The RTX 5050 includes 20 ray tracing cores and 80 tensor cores, features entirely absent from the Quadro M4000M. This means the RTX 5050 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro M4000M tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RTX 5050's hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI workloads opens application domains the Quadro cannot access.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The RTX 5050 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX 5050's effective memory clock of 20 Gbps versus 5 Gbps for the Quadro is the key differentiator, allowing half the bus width to deliver twice the bandwidth.

Interface and power delivery also differ. The RTX 5050 uses PCIe 5.0 x8 with a dual-slot form factor and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro M4000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU rating. The RTX 5050 offers 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs, while the Quadro M4000M's display outputs are "portable device dependent," reflecting its mobile workstation heritage.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the RTX 5050 outperforms the Quadro M4000M by margins exceeding 326% in every direct comparison. For users requiring modern graphics features—ray tracing, tensor core acceleration, DirectX 12 Ultimate support—the RTX 5050 is the only viable choice between these two. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory doubles the Quadro's 4 GB GDDR5 capacity, and its 320.0 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double the Quadro's 160.4 GB/s.

The Quadro M4000M's advantages are limited to lower power consumption (100 W versus 130 W) and its MXM Module form factor, which may be relevant for specific mobile workstation chassis. Its end-of-life production status and 2015 release date indicate it is a legacy part, while the RTX 5050 is active production with a 2025 release date. The RTX 5050's launch MSRP is 249 USD.

In compute performance, the RTX 5050's 13.17 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is roughly five times the Quadro M4000M's 2.593 TFLOPS. The RTX 5050 also supports FP16 at 13.17 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a capability the Quadro M4000M entirely lacks. For any workload that can leverage these capabilities—machine learning inference, scientific computing, content creation—the RTX 5050 is categorically superior.

The percentile rankings are close (66th for RTX 5050 versus 65th for Quadro M4000M), but this similarity belies the massive performance gap. The Quadro M4000M's percentile is inflated by its average benchmark score of 20,480 across only two tests, while the RTX 5050's average of 21,035 spans ten tests. The RTX 5050's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL (21153, -0.6%), AMD Radeon HD 8970M (21237, -1%), AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT (20713, 1.6%), and NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21379, -1.6%). The Quadro M4000M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, -0.3%), Intel Arc B570 (20556, -0.4%), Intel Arc A750 (20582, -0.5%), and AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, -0.9%).

The verdict is clear: for any modern workload, the RTX 5050 is the superior GPU. The Quadro M4000M remains relevant only in legacy systems where its specific form factor and power envelope are mandatory requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 5050 offers 320.0 GB/s bandwidth via 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, versus the Quadro M4000M's 160.4 GB/s via 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro M4000M support ray tracing?

A: No. The Quadro M4000M has no RT cores and no tensor cores, while the RTX 5050 includes 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RTX 5050 scores 90,334 versus 19,989 for the Quadro M4000M, a 351.9% advantage for the RTX 5050.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX 5050 is built on TSMC's 5 nm process with 16,900 million transistors, while the Quadro M4000M uses TSMC's 28 nm process with 5,200 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RTX 5050 achieves 82.30 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s for the Quadro M4000M, despite the Quadro having 64 ROPs compared to the RTX 5050's 32 ROPs.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RTX 5050 has a 130 W TDP, while the Quadro M4000M consumes 100 W. The RTX 5050 requires a 300 W suggested PSU and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the starkest illustration of the performance gap. The RTX 5050 scores 90,334, while the Quadro M4000M manages only 19,989. This 351.9% delta reflects the RTX 5050's 2560 shading units operating at 2317 MHz base and 2572 MHz boost clocks, against the Quadro's 1280 shading units at 975 MHz and 1013 MHz. The RTX 5050's FP32 throughput of 13.17 TFLOPS is more than five times the Quadro's 2.593 TFLOPS, and OpenCL workloads that scale with raw compute throughput see commensurate gains.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern, with the RTX 5050 scoring 89,381 against the Quadro M4000M's 20,971, a 326.2% advantage. Vulkan workloads benefit from the RTX 5050's modern architecture features, including its 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores, which enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI operations that the Quadro M4000M cannot perform at all. The RTX 5050's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (12_1) further differentiates their feature sets in graphics APIs.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the RTX 5050's broader benchmark suite demonstrates its versatility. Its PassMark G3D score of 17,326 and GPU compute score of 9,184 indicate strong DirectX performance across versions 9 through 12. The Quadro M4000M has no PassMark data in the fact pack, limiting direct comparison to the two Geekbench tests. The RTX 5050's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2502 further establishes its modern gaming and professional graphics credentials.

The RTX 5050's average benchmark score of 21,035 across ten tests, versus the Quadro M4000M's 20,480 across two tests, shows that even when averaging over a wider range of workloads, the RTX 5050 maintains a lead. The RTX 5050's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, sits just 0.6% below its average score, while the Quadro M4000M's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, sits 0.3% above. This places both GPUs in similar competitive tiers relative to their respective peers, but the RTX 5050 achieves its position with far more modern hardware and a much larger feature set.

In summary, every benchmark where both GPUs have data shows the RTX 5050 winning by margins of over 300%. The architectural differences—5 nm versus 28 nm process, Blackwell 2.0 versus Maxwell 2.0, 16,900 million versus 5,200 million transistors, 13.17 versus 2.593 TFLOPS FP32—combine to produce a performance chasm that no amount of driver optimization or workload tuning on the Quadro M4000M can bridge.