RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

RTX 3060 Mobile
2021
6 GB GDDR6, 80 Watt
30.12
RTX 2000 Ada Generation
2024, $649
16 GB GDDR6, 70 Watt
40.62
+34.9%

RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms RTX 3060 Mobile by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking217117
Place by popularity75not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data36.87
Power efficiency29.1944.98
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2025)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGA106AD107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date12 January 2021 (5 years ago)12 February 2024 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores38402816
Core clock speed900 MHz1620 MHz
Boost clock speed1425 MHz2130 MHz
Number of transistors13,250 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate171.0187.4
Floating-point processing power10.94 TFLOPS12 TFLOPS
ROPs4848
TMUs12088
Tensor Cores12088
Ray Tracing Cores3022
L1 Cache3.8 MB2.8 MB
L2 Cache3 MB12 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount6 GB16 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth336.0 GB/s256.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.21.3
CUDA8.68.9
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.

RTX 3060 Mobile 30.12
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 40.62
+34.9%

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.

RTX 3060 Mobile 12550
Samples: 22049
RTX 2000 Ada Generation 16924
+34.9%
Samples: 1065

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 HD92
−23.3%
120−130
1440p6080−85
+33.3%
4K3850−55
+31.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.41
1440pno data8.11
4Kno data12.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 174 230−240
+32.2%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180 230−240
+34.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 103 130−140
+26.2%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 124 160−170
+29%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 131 170−180
+29.8%
Battlefield 5 110−120 150−160
+31.6%
Counter-Strike 2 170−180 230−240
+34.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 86 110−120
+27.9%
Far Cry 5 112 150−160
+33.9%
Fortnite 140−150 180−190
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120 160−170
+34.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130 160−170
+30.1%
Valorant 190−200 260−270
+33.3%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 75 100−105
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 141 190−200
+34.8%
Counter-Strike 2 61 80−85
+31.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 350−400
+27.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 69 90−95
+30.4%
Dota 2 131 170−180
+29.8%
Far Cry 5 106 140−150
+32.1%
Fortnite 140−150 180−190
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120 160−170
+34.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 121 160−170
+32.2%
Metro Exodus 81 100−105
+23.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130 160−170
+30.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 142 190−200
+33.8%
Valorant 189 250−260
+32.3%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 131 170−180
+29.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 62 80−85
+29%
Dota 2 124 160−170
+29%
Far Cry 5 101 130−140
+28.7%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120 160−170
+34.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130 160−170
+30.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 78 100−105
+28.2%
Valorant 172 230−240
+33.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150 180−190
+28.6%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 82 110−120
+34.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 210−220 280−290
+30.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 75 100−105
+33.3%
Metro Exodus 50 65−70
+30%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 230−240
+31.4%
Valorant 304 400−450
+31.6%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 104 140−150
+34.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 39 50−55
+28.2%
Far Cry 5 84 110−120
+31%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85 110−120
+34.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55 70−75
+32.1%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 100−105
+29.9%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 24−27 30−33
+25%
Counter-Strike 2 25 30−33
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 73 95−100
+30.1%
Metro Exodus 31 40−45
+29%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55 70−75
+27.3%
Valorant 180−190 240−250
+32.6%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 63 80−85
+27%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 40−45
+21.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 15 18−20
+20%
Dota 2 95 120−130
+26.3%
Far Cry 5 40 50−55
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 70−75
+27.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40 45−50
+25%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 35−40 45−50
+25%

This is how RTX 3060 Mobile and RTX 2000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 30% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 33% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation is 32% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 30.12 40.62
Recency 12 January 2021 12 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 6 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 8 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 70 Watt

RTX 2000 Ada Generation has a 35% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 167% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 38% more advanced lithography process, and 13% lower power consumption.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 6317 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 100 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile or RTX 2000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.