Component comparison
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce RTX 2050
GeForce RTX 5070 vs GeForce RTX 2050 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 5070
- + Release year (+4)
- + VRAM (GB) (+4 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+250 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+560 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+128 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+55 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-4 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+22,400M)
- + CUDA cores (+4096)
- + TMUs (+128)
- + ROPs (+48)
- + RT cores (+16)
- + Tensor cores (+128)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+26.14 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+161.16 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+402.62 GTexel/s)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+25984)
- + Normalized score (+14.4)
B
GeForce RTX 2050
- + Die size (mm²) (+63 mm²)
- + Energy efficiency (+8.3)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 5070
|
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) | 2000 MHz (+250 MHz) | 1750 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 672 GB/s (+560 GB/s) | 112 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 192 bit (+128 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 100 W (+55 W) | 45 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-4 nm) | 8 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 31,100M (+22,400M) | 8,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 263 mm² | 200 mm² (+63 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1245 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 6,144 (+4096) | 2,048 |
| TMUs | 192 (+128) | 64 |
| ROPs | 80 (+48) | 32 |
| RT cores | 48 (+16) | 32 |
| Tensor cores | 192 (+128) | 64 |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 30.87 TFLOPS (+26.14 TFLOPS) | 4.73 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 201.00 GPixel/s (+161.16 GPixel/s) | 39.84 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 482.30 GTexel/s (+402.62 GTexel/s) | 79.68 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 21.3 | 29.6 (+8.3) |
| PassMark (overall) | 19,075 | — |
| 3DMark Time Spy | — | 3,221 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 34,949 (+25984) | 8,965 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 44,279 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 43,030 |
| Normalized score | 69.6 (+14.4) | 55.2 |
Only in component A
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
DLSS
ReBAR
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 5070 | GeForce RTX 2050 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 180 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | +157.1% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300 FPS | ≈ 74 FPS | +305.4% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170 FPS | 18 FPS | +844.4% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 322 FPS | 35 FPS | +820% (A) |
| Fortnite | 300 FPS | ≈ 95 FPS | +215.8% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270 FPS | ≈ 70 FPS | +285.7% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 329 FPS | 53 FPS | +520.8% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 170 FPS | ≈ 35 FPS | +385.7% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | ≈ 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | ≈ 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 210 FPS | 17 FPS | +1135.3% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 436 FPS | ≈ 58 FPS | +651.7% (A) |
| Valorant | 400 FPS | ≈ 130 FPS | +207.7% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings. Values for GeForce RTX 2050 are model predictions (≈); GeForce RTX 5070 are direct measurements.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 5070 wins 18 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).