GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs G 103M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G 103M and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms G 103M by a whopping 15613% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1415 | 215 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | no data | 28.75 |
Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
GPU code name | G98 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (1 year 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 | 8 | 2560 |
Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 1237 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1492 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
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 | no data | large |
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 | DDR2 | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 12000 MHz |
Shared memory | - | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 10.0 | 12_2 |
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 | -0−1 | 72 |
1440p | -0−1 | 36 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3950%
|
81
+3950%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3100%
|
64
+3100%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−1338%
|
110−120
+1338%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−268%
|
100−110
+268%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2200%
|
46
+2200%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−1338%
|
110−120
+1338%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−2050%
|
86
+2050%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−500%
|
50−55
+500%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−268%
|
100−110
+268%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−1338%
|
110−120
+1338%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−456%
|
50
+456%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−268%
|
100−110
+268%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−2000%
|
40−45
+2000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 12−14 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 3950% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 41 test (59%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.16 | 25.14 |
Recency | 1 September 2009 | 6 January 2023 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 6 GB |
Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 15612.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.