After another review-less launch, the first RTX 5050 benchmarks are here — Nvidia's budget card loses to B580 and RTX 4060, with only multi frame generation to give it a boost

Color RTX 5050 graphics card.
(Image credit: Colorful)

The first third-party review for Nvidia's new RTX 5050 graphics card has been published at Quasarzone, and throughout the extensive benchmarks, it falls behind the Intel Arc B580 by 2.5% on average, and the RTX 4060 by around seven percent. It proves notably faster than the RTX 3060, though, topping it by just over 13% across the 15-game average.

As with all of Nvidia's recent 8GB graphics card releases, no review samples were sent out for the new RTX 5050, but we had our first taste of what it could do from board partner Inno3D a few days ago. It also hasn't stopped reviewers from buying up the card themselves to see how it performs. While other reviews from native English publications will no doubt follow in the coming days, this first one gives us a clear picture of what the RTX 5050 is capable of, including impressive gains when using multi frame generation.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jon Martindale
Freelance Writer

Jon Martindale is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware. For the past 20 years, he's been writing about PC components, emerging technologies, and the latest software advances. His deep and broad journalistic experience gives him unique insights into the most exciting technology trends of today and tomorrow.

  • Notton
    I like how the full configuration GB207 is worse than an AD107. It's essentially the cut down AD107 meant for laptops.
    They don't even make up for it with 12GB or 16GB VRAM.
    It doesn't do PhysX, which I assume you'd want since the card is plenty for older games that have it.

    As suspected, it's slower than a B580.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    $150 card with a $250 price tag.
    Reply
  • LolaGT
    There is nothing impressive about faked frames at any time. There is nothing impressive about this silicon at all.
    Reply
  • Pemalite
    Definitely a 50/50 graphics card.
    Waste of sand.

    Can't convincingly beat the old Radeon RX 7600 8GB.
    You would probably be better off buying a Radeon RX 6600XT for a lower price.
    Reply
  • russell_john
    Notton said:
    I like how the full configuration GB207 is worse than an AD107. It's essentially the cut down AD107 meant for laptops.
    They don't even make up for it with 12GB or 16GB VRAM.
    It doesn't do PhysX, which I assume you'd want since the card is plenty for older games that have it.

    As suspected, it's slower than a B580.
    Intel and AMD don't do PhysX either and never ever have. And it's only 32 bit PhysX 64 bit PhysX still works just fine
    Reply
  • Notton
    russell_john said:
    Intel and AMD don't do PhysX either and never ever have. And it's only 32 bit PhysX 64 bit PhysX still works just fine
    If you gave some thought before writing that, you'd quickly realize Nvidia hasn't given out the IP rights to PhysX, so of course AMD and Intel don't have it.
    The problem is, you don't get a choice and have to resort to a used 40 series or older for 32bit PhysX support.
    You're using Whataboutism to deflect blame that is squarely on Nvidia.
    Reply
  • Quirkz
    Pemalite said:

    Can't convincingly beat the old Radeon RX 7600 8GB.
    You would probably be better off buying a Radeon RX 6600XT for a lower price.
    Bought a 6650XT for a mini PC in 2022 for $260.
    That was killer value for the time. This is not.
    Reply