GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile vs 8700M GT SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8700M GT SLI and GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile outperforms 8700M GT SLI by a whopping 3235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1159 | 220 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 61 |
| Power efficiency | 0.93 | 24.09 |
| Architecture | G8x (2007) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | NB8E-SE | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 September 2007 (17 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 735 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1035 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 578 Million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 82.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.299 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 48 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | large | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 2−3
−3700%
| 76
+3700%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4200%
| 43
+4200%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 28 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3033%
|
94
+3033%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2267%
|
71
+2267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2850%
|
59
+2850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−460%
|
160−170
+460%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1300%
|
42
+1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−1195%
|
250−260
+1195%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45
+2150%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−808%
|
118
+808%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2200%
|
92
+2200%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−460%
|
160−170
+460%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−600%
|
45−50
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−769%
|
113
+769%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1150%
|
50
+1150%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−273%
|
112
+273%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−5667%
|
170−180
+5667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 22 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3100%
|
60−65
+3100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5800%
|
55−60
+5800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1800%
|
18−20
+1800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
44
+193%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3525%
|
140−150
+3525%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+0%
|
94
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how 8700M GT SLI and RTX 3050 Ti Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 3700% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 4200% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is ahead in 36 tests (56%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (44%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 26.35 |
| Recency | 18 September 2007 | 11 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 75 Watt |
8700M GT SLI has 29.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile, on the other hand, has a 3235.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8700M GT SLI 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.
