GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GT 435M

Place in the ranking	1010	165
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.40
Power efficiency	2.73	17.29
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF108	GA106
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$249

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 cores	96	2560
Core clock speed	650 MHz	1552 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.40	142.2
Floating-point processing power	0.2496 TFLOPS	9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	16	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	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	224.0 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API with Feature Level 12.1	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 435M 1.39

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.75
+2256%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 435M 535

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+2257%

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:

900p	19 −2005%	400−450 +2005%
Full HD	24 −2192%	550−600 +2192%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

0.45

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

−2150%

90−95
+2150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Hitman 3	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −2233%	350−400 +2233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2150%	180−190 +2150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2173%	750−800 +2173%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Hitman 3	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −2233%	350−400 +2233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2150%	180−190 +2150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −2173%	250−260 +2173%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2173%	750−800 +2173%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2150%	90−95 +2150%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Hitman 3	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −2233%	350−400 +2233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −2150%	180−190 +2150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −2173%	250−260 +2173%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −2173%	750−800 +2173%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−2150%

45−50
+2150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Hitman 3	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −2100%	110−120 +2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −2186%	160−170 +2186%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−2150%

90−95
+2150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−2000%

21−24
+2000%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −2000%	21−24 +2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−2233%

70−75
+2233%

This is how GT 435M and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 8 GB is 2005% faster in 900p
RTX 3050 8 GB is 2192% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.39	32.75
Recency	3 September 2010	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	130 Watt

GT 435M has 271.4% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 2256.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 435M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 435M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 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.