RTX A400 vs GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile with RTX A400, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile outperforms RTX A400 by an impressive 68% 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 | 265 | 411 |
| Place by popularity | 57 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 24.96 | 22.22 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GA106 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (5 years ago) | 16 April 2024 (2 years ago) |
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 | 2560 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 727 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1035 MHz | 1762 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,250 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 82.80 | 42.29 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.299 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 24 |
| Tensor Cores | 80 | 24 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 20 | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 2.5 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 163 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 96 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 outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 75
+87.5%
| 40−45 |
| 1440p | 42
+75%
| 24−27 |
| 4K | 27
+68.8%
| 16−18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+72.5%
|
80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75
+87.5%
|
40−45 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 71
+77.5%
|
40−45 |
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+80%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+72.5%
|
80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 59
+68.6%
|
35−40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+75.6%
|
45−50 |
| Fortnite | 120−130
+72.9%
|
70−75 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+76.4%
|
55−60 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+76.8%
|
95−100 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 42
+75%
|
24−27 |
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+78.2%
|
55−60 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+72.5%
|
80−85 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+72.7%
|
150−160 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+87.5%
|
24−27 |
| Dota 2 | 118
+68.6%
|
70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+85%
|
40−45 |
| Fortnite | 120−130
+72.9%
|
70−75 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+70.9%
|
55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 57
+90%
|
30−33 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+76.4%
|
55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 92
+84%
|
50−55 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+76.8%
|
95−100 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+78%
|
50−55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 113
+73.8%
|
65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+70%
|
40−45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+78.2%
|
55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+76.4%
|
55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+85.2%
|
27−30 |
| Valorant | 112
+72.3%
|
65−70 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 120−130
+72.9%
|
70−75 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+76.7%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+74%
|
100−105 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+70.8%
|
24−27 |
| Metro Exodus | 34
+88.9%
|
18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+75%
|
100−105 |
| Valorant | 190−200
+78.2%
|
110−120 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 22
+83.3%
|
12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+85.2%
|
27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+90.5%
|
21−24 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+83.3%
|
24−27 |
| Metro Exodus | 21
+75%
|
12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+81.3%
|
16−18 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+72.5%
|
80−85 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+81%
|
21−24 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+100%
|
5−6 |
| Dota 2 | 54
+80%
|
30−33 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+75%
|
12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+85.7%
|
14−16 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18 |
This is how RTX 3050 Ti Mobile and RTX A400 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 88% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 75% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 69% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.16 | 14.34 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 16 April 2024 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile has a 68% higher aggregate performance score.
RTX A400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 33% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the RTX A400 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is a notebook graphics card while RTX A400 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.
