Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms RTX 3050 4GB Mobile by a whopping 195% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 296 | 31 |
| Place by popularity | 46 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.23 |
| Power efficiency | 28.42 | 19.32 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | RDNA 3 (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (5 years ago) | 26 May 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 57.7 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 707.0 |
| ROPs | no data | 128 |
| TMUs | no data | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 280 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 59
−65.3%
| 170−180 |
| 1440p | 43
−64.2%
| 120−130 |
| 4K | 27 | 75−80
+178%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 14.70 |
| 1440p | no data | 20.83 |
| 4K | no data | 33.32 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 71 | 200−210
+182%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170 | 500−550
+194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66 | 190−200
+188%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 50 | 140−150
+180%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 54 | 150−160
+178%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 270−280
+190%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125 | 350−400
+180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52 | 150−160
+188%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68 | 200−210
+194%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 300−310
+165%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 260−270
+189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 250−260
+187%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 450−500
+187%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 32 | 90−95
+181%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 89 | 260−270
+192%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36 | 100−105
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 700−750
+181%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41 | 120−130
+193%
|
| Dota 2 | 118 | 300−310
+154%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64 | 180−190
+181%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 300−310
+165%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 260−270
+189%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 250−260
+191%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 140−150
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 250−260
+187%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81 | 230−240
+184%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 450−500
+187%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83 | 240−250
+189%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34 | 100−105
+194%
|
| Dota 2 | 112 | 300−310
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 170−180
+179%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 260−270
+189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 250−260
+187%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46 | 130−140
+183%
|
| Valorant | 150−160 | 450−500
+187%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 300−310
+165%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 130−140
+177%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170 | 450−500
+181%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48 | 140−150
+192%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 85−90
+193%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 500−550
+187%
|
| Valorant | 180−190 | 500−550
+172%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 66 | 190−200
+188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 50−55
+178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49 | 140−150
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60 | 160−170
+181%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 100−105
+186%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 150−160
+183%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 50−55
+178%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 60−65
+173%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44 | 120−130
+173%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 50−55
+194%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 85−90
+193%
|
| Valorant | 120−130 | 350−400
+187%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 100−105
+186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 60−65
+173%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 16−18
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 62 | 180−190
+190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 55−60
+189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 110−120
+182%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 65−70
+183%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 70−75
+192%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7800 is 188% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7800 is 179% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7800 is 178% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.00 | 64.80 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 26 May 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 260 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has 77% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 195% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
