GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Radeon R9 M380
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M380 and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms R9 M380 by a whopping 248% 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 | 623 | 277 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 60 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 29.69 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Strato | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (11 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (3 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 | 768 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.536 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 48 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | no data |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 | 18−20
−283%
| 69
+283%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−267%
| 33
+267%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−300%
|
130−140
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−523%
|
81
+523%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−300%
|
130−140
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−392%
|
64
+392%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−305%
|
85
+305%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−210%
|
90−95
+210%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−270%
|
70−75
+270%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−125%
|
160−170
+125%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−300%
|
130−140
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−133%
|
250−260
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−254%
|
46
+254%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−128%
|
120−130
+128%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−271%
|
78
+271%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−210%
|
90−95
+210%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−270%
|
70−75
+270%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−300%
|
92
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−300%
|
50−55
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−406%
|
91
+406%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−125%
|
160−170
+125%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−224%
|
90−95
+224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−200%
|
39
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−128%
|
120−130
+128%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−252%
|
74
+252%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
−210%
|
90−95
+210%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−283%
|
90−95
+283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
−178%
|
50
+178%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−125%
|
160−170
+125%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
−193%
|
110−120
+193%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−317%
|
50−55
+317%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−227%
|
160−170
+227%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−471%
|
40
+471%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−417%
|
30−35
+417%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−335%
|
170−180
+335%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−184%
|
190−200
+184%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−450%
|
65−70
+450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−300%
|
52
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−275%
|
60−65
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−311%
|
37
+311%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−331%
|
55−60
+331%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−159%
|
40−45
+159%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−348%
|
130−140
+348%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−225%
|
75−80
+225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−310%
|
40−45
+310%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−317%
|
24−27
+317%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how R9 M380 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 283% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 267% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile performs better in 61 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.62 | 23.03 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 248% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R9 M380 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
