GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs 210

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 210 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 210
2009, $29
512 MB GDDR2, 30 Watt
0.32

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms 210 by a whopping 7006% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1362271
Place by popularitynot in top-10082
Power efficiency0.8029.36
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGT218SGN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2009 (16 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$29.49 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 cores162560
Core clock speed589 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1492 MHz
Number of transistors260 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30.5 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate4.160no data
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data
L2 Cache32 KBno 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length168 mmno data
Height2.731" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth8.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsDVIVGADisplayPortno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12_2
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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 HD0−169
1440p-0−133

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 64
+0%
64
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 85
+0%
85
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 92
+0%
92
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+0%
91
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.32 22.74
Recency 12 October 2009 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 60 Watt

GeForce 210 has 100% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 7006.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 210 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a notebook one.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile

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.


2.6 3992 votes

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 1028 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 210 or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.