GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M with GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, including specs and performance data.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
13.88

RTX 3050 4 GB outperforms Arc A350M by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking363314
Place by popularitynot in top-10031
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data36.91
Power efficiency40.0413.61
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameDG2-128GA107
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)27 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores7682048
Core clock speed300 MHz1545 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHz1740 MHz
Number of transistors7,200 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate55.20111.4
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS7.127 TFLOPS
ROPs2432
TMUs4864
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Cores616

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.66.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA-8.6

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 HD35
−14.3%
40−45
+14.3%
1440p16
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
4K9
−11.1%
10−12
+11.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.98
1440pno data11.06
4Kno data19.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 27
−11.1%
30−33
+11.1%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−17%
55−60
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 66
−21.2%
80−85
+21.2%
Forza Horizon 5 32
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−12.5%
45−50
+12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−11.1%
40−45
+11.1%
Valorant 56
−16.1%
65−70
+16.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−17%
55−60
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Dota 2 38
−18.4%
45−50
+18.4%
Far Cry 5 27
−11.1%
30−33
+11.1%
Fortnite 80−85
−17.3%
95−100
+17.3%
Forza Horizon 4 53
−13.2%
60−65
+13.2%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−18.4%
45−50
+18.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Metro Exodus 40−45
−12.5%
45−50
+12.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−14.3%
120−130
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
−11.1%
40−45
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−13.6%
50−55
+13.6%
Valorant 55−60
−20.7%
70−75
+20.7%
World of Tanks 190−200
−21.1%
230−240
+21.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
−17%
55−60
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Dota 2 59
−18.6%
70−75
+18.6%
Far Cry 5 50−55
−13.2%
60−65
+13.2%
Forza Horizon 4 45
−22.2%
55−60
+22.2%
Forza Horizon 5 21
−14.3%
24−27
+14.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−14.3%
120−130
+14.3%
Valorant 55−60
−20.7%
70−75
+20.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
−19.3%
130−140
+19.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
World of Tanks 100−110
−17.6%
120−130
+17.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−14.3%
40−45
+14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 37
−21.6%
45−50
+21.6%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−17.4%
27−30
+17.4%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−9.4%
35−40
+9.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Valorant 35−40
−11.1%
40−45
+11.1%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Dota 2 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Metro Exodus 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−16.3%
50−55
+16.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
−15.4%
30−33
+15.4%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Fortnite 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 19
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Valorant 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%

This is how Arc A350M and RTX 3050 4 GB compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 4 GB is 14% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 4 GB is 13% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3050 4 GB is 11% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.88 16.99
Recency 30 March 2022 27 January 2022
Chip lithography 6 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 90 Watt

Arc A350M has an age advantage of 2 months, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 260% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has a 22.4% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.

Be aware that Arc A350M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB

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.


3.8 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2696 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.