Conclusion
So, this is a card that, right from the start, just felt a bit… odd, and after putting it through its paces, it’s clear why. This isn’t a flagship, and it’s not even going to be setting any mid-range records, but at its $249 MSRP, it steps into a market that genuinely needs a bit of attention from NVIDIA. Purely on performance, the RTX 5050 doesn’t exactly offer that next-gen jump we’re usually looking for. Across our 10-game rasterisation tests, it was 6% slower than the RTX 4060, a card that’s two years old now. When you compare it to the RTX 3060 Ti, which is nearly five years old, it’s a more noticeable 14% behind. Yes, removing the “did not run” Indiana Jones result shifts that 5050 deficit to 4% against the RTX 4060, but honestly, it just feels like we’re trying to make excuses for what is, fundamentally, a lack of progress.
RTX or Not?
Moving into raytracing, which is usually NVIDIA’s strong point, the story here is pretty much the same. Alan Wake II did show a promising 5% lead over the RTX 4060, but that was just one game and had upscaling on. Overall though, the RTX 5050 ended up 5% behind the RTX 4060 and a significant 13% behind the RTX 3060 Ti in our raytracing averages. It’s a card that, just like the RTX 3050 before it, almost makes you question if it should even have the “RTX” badge. Maybe bringing back the GTX branding, or simply not releasing the card at all, would have been a clearer message.
Pricing
Now, the big one – pricing. At $249, the RTX 5050 initially looked like it could be NVIDIA’s answer for the budget market, especially with AMD not really having anything at this exact price point. Our cost-per-frame shows that, on paper, it isn’t terrible, but here’s the kicker: it’s 10 cents more expensive per frame than the RX 9060 XT, yet it gives you 32% less overall performance. That’s a tough pill to swallow when you think about the longevity that 16GB of VRAM offers, especially when games like Indiana Jones just flat out refuse to run on 8GB cards.
Stock Availability
Let’s be honest though, the big question mark always hangs over real-world selling prices. We mentioned how hard it was to even get our hands on an RTX 5050 for review, and it’s the same story with an 8GB RX 9060 XT. If NVIDIA and their AIB partners aren’t keen on sending out samples, that pretty much tells you all you need to know. The reality is, if we had an 8GB RX 9060 XT, things would look even worse for the RTX 5050, as that card should come in much closer to its 16GB sibling, pushing the 5050 even further down the value chain.
Adding to that, the PCIe 5.0 x8 interface on the RTX 5050, compared to the x16 on the RX 9060 XT (even in its potential 8GB form), is another limitation that just screams cost-cutting. While the Colorful Ultra W Duo OC model we tested was well-behaved for temps and power efficiency, running quietly and cool under load, the core performance just isn’t there to make it a standout product.
8GB in 2025 is a Stretch
Ultimately, what’s clear is that NVIDIA, with the RTX 5050, seems to be focusing on hitting a price point, rather than truly innovating or offering a big generational upgrade at the entry level. While they push AI upscaling with DLSS, AMD’s approach with the RX 9060 XT, focusing on strong rasterisation and improved raytracing at a competitive price with plenty of VRAM, feels more aligned with what mainstream gamers need in 2025. It really hammers home the point that 16GB is becoming the new normal, and any 8GB card, regardless of who makes it, is going to struggle for relevance and longevity.
For now, that’s going to wrap up this review of the new GeForce RTX 5050 from NVIDIA. Hopefully, you enjoyed this one, and we will be doing our utmost to get an 8GB RX 9060 XT and those all-important Intel cards for comparisons.
