GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs GTX 760

Place in the ranking	400	167
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.54	69.07
Power efficiency	5.06	17.41
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK104	GA106
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	25 June 2013 (11 years ago)	4 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$249	$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 8 GB has 1421% better value for money than GTX 760.

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	1152	2560
Core clock speed	980 MHz	1552 MHz
Boost clock speed	1033 MHz	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	130 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	97 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	99.07	142.2
Floating-point processing power	2.378 TFLOPS	9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	96	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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	241 mm	242 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Minimum recommended system power	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	1x 8-pin
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.2 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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu Ray 3D	+	-
3D Gaming	+	-
3D Vision	+	-
PhysX	+	-
3D Vision Live	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	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.

GTX 760 12.48

RTX 3050 8 GB 32.81
+163%

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.

GTX 760 4798

RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+163%

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

−150%

170−180
+150%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.66

−150%

1.46
+150%

RTX 3050 8 GB has 150% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −160%	65−70 +160%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −160%	65−70 +160%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
Valorant	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −160%	65−70 +160%
Dota 2	45−50 −144%	110−120 +144%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −150%	120−130 +150%
Fortnite	70−75 −154%	180−190 +154%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
Grand Theft Auto V	45−50 −144%	110−120 +144%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −150%	85−90 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −158%	240−250 +158%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 −150%	80−85 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −150%	95−100 +150%
Valorant	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%
World of Tanks	170−180 −135%	400−450 +135%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 −144%	100−105 +144%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −162%	55−60 +162%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 −160%	65−70 +160%
Dota 2	45−50 −144%	110−120 +144%
Far Cry 5	45−50 −150%	120−130 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −158%	85−90 +158%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 −158%	240−250 +158%
Valorant	50−55 −160%	130−140 +160%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −150%	45−50 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	80−85 −163%	210−220 +163%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
World of Tanks	85−90 −161%	230−240 +161%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −160%	65−70 +160%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Far Cry 5	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%
Forza Horizon 4	30−33 −150%	75−80 +150%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Metro Exodus	24−27 −150%	65−70 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Valorant	30−35 −158%	80−85 +158%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Dota 2	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −157%	95−100 +157%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 −145%	27−30 +145%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Dota 2	21−24 −161%	60−65 +161%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Fortnite	14−16 −150%	35−40 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −135%	40−45 +135%
Forza Horizon 5	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Valorant	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%

This is how GTX 760 and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 8 GB is 150% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	12.48	32.81
Recency	25 June 2013	4 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	170 Watt	130 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 162.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 30.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 760 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.