And it's 8GB of last-gen GDDR6 video memory, the exact same as the $249 RTX 3050 from three years ago (same number of CUDA cores too). Technically with inflation that's more per dollar, I guess, but that's not super appealing.
The charts are from the Verge, not exactly known for their integrity in regards to anything.
It's also with DLSS on, so you could just as easily have the framerate be 100 FPS, 1000 FPS, or 10000 FPS. The GPU doesn't actually have to render the frame in that case, it just has to have a pixel buffer ready to offload to whatever hardware sends it over the link to the display. Apparently some people actually really like this, but it isn't rendering by any reasonable definition.
This is creative marketing from nVidia. Notice the "With DLSS 4".
That's AI frame hallucination which the 5050 has.
Without the DLSS, the numbers from independent reviewers has basically been exactly on par with the previous generations (about 10% increase in performance).
That's Nvidia's marketing slide and if you note the fine print they are tested at different settings. The RTX 5050 is using 4x frame gen which the 3050 isn't. Techpowerup has the RTX 5050 as being 20% faster than the 3050 give or take, which is certainly not enough to justify upgrading
If you're using less memory, it kinda stands to reason that you can get more mileage out of less bandwidth. I'd be really upset if this was a 16gb or 24gb card, but we've been using GDDR6 for 8gb cards without issues for years now.
I agree that it's not super appealing, but Team Green has to hit the low price points somehow. This feels more like a hedged bet against Intel trying to muscle their way back into the budget market.
