GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GTX 280M SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.

GTX 280M SLI
2009
2 GB GDDR3, 150 Watt
3.44

RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms GTX 280M SLI by a whopping 850% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking721162
Place by popularitynot in top-10011
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data69.02
Power efficiency1.5917.41
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameN10E-GTXGA106
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date2 March 2009 (15 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 cores2562560
Core clock speed585 MHz1552 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1777 MHz
Number of transistors1508 Million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rateno data142.2
Floating-point processing powerno data9.098 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data80
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed950 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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 Connectorsno data1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX1012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−850%
95−100
+850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−844%
85−90
+844%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−847%
180−190
+847%
Hitman 3 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−817%
220−230
+817%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−823%
120−130
+823%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−775%
350−400
+775%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−850%
95−100
+850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Battlefield 5 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−844%
85−90
+844%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−847%
180−190
+847%
Hitman 3 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−817%
220−230
+817%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−823%
120−130
+823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−833%
140−150
+833%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−775%
350−400
+775%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−850%
95−100
+850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−847%
180−190
+847%
Hitman 3 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
−817%
220−230
+817%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−823%
120−130
+823%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−833%
140−150
+833%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−775%
350−400
+775%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
−850%
190−200
+850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.44 32.68
Recency 2 March 2009 4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 130 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 850% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 587.5% more advanced lithography process, and 15.4% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280M SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 280M SLI 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.

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 GTX 280M SLI
GeForce GTX 280M SLI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


5 1 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 280M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 12132 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.