GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M with GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, including specs and performance data.
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 ranking | 366 | 317 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 31 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.01 |
| Power efficiency | 40.00 | 13.61 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1545 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1740 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 7.127 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 16 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 192.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 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 HD | 35
−14.3%
| 40−45
+14.3%
|
| 1440p | 16
−12.5%
| 18−20
+12.5%
|
| 4K | 9
−11.1%
| 10−12
+11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.98 |
| 1440p | no data | 11.06 |
| 4K | no data | 19.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| 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
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| 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
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| 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
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
| 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
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| 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
−18.6%
|
70−75
+18.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−18.5%
|
160−170
+18.5%
|
| 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 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| 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 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| 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 | 13.96 | 17.10 |
| 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 22.5% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
