Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce RTX 2050
GeForce RTX 5060 vs GeForce RTX 2050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5060
- + Release year (+4)
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+336 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+64 bit)
- + Lithography (nm) (-3 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+13,200M)
- + Die size (mm²) (+19 mm²)
- + CUDA cores (+1792)
- + TMUs (+56)
- + ROPs (+16)
- + Tensor cores (+56)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+14.45 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+80.06 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+219.92 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+39.5)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+22401)
B
GeForce RTX 2050
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + RT cores (+2)
- + Normalized score (+4.9)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5060
|
Component B
GeForce RTX 2050
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2025 (+4) | 2021 |
| VRAM (GB) | 8 GB (+4 GB) | 4 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz (+250 MHz) |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 448 GB/s (+336 GB/s) | 112 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 128 bit (+64 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 45 W | 45 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 5 nm (-3 nm) | 8 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 21,900M (+13,200M) | 8,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 181 mm² (+19 mm²) | 200 mm² |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1245 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 3,840 (+1792) | 2,048 |
| TMUs | 120 (+56) | 64 |
| ROPs | 48 (+16) | 32 |
| RT cores | 30 | 32 (+2) |
| Tensor cores | 120 (+56) | 64 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 19.18 TFLOPS (+14.45 TFLOPS) | 4.73 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 119.90 GPixel/s (+80.06 GPixel/s) | 39.84 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 299.60 GTexel/s (+219.92 GTexel/s) | 79.68 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 69.2 (+39.5) | 29.6 |
| PassMark (overall) | 16,749 | — |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 3,221 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 31,366 (+22401) | 8,965 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 44,279 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 43,030 |
| Normalized score | 50.3 | 55.2 (+4.9) |
Only in component A
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
DLSS
ReBAR
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5060 | GeForce RTX 2050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 130 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | +85.7% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220 FPS | ≈ 74 FPS | +197.3% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95 FPS | 18 FPS | +427.8% (A) |
| Escape from Tarkov | 120 FPS | 70 FPS | +71.4% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 130 FPS | 35 FPS | +271.4% (A) |
| Fortnite | 170 FPS | ≈ 95 FPS | +78.9% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | +114.3% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 255 FPS | 53 FPS | +381.1% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 95 FPS | ≈ 35 FPS | +171.4% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110 FPS | 17 FPS | +547.1% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 140 FPS | ≈ 58 FPS | +141.4% (A) |
| Valorant | 230 FPS | ≈ 130 FPS | +76.9% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings. Values for GeForce RTX 2050 are model predictions (≈); GeForce RTX 5060 are direct measurements.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5060 wins 16 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).