Quadro NVS 150M vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile with Quadro NVS 150M, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms 150M by a whopping 12812% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 286 | 1471 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.46 | 1.32 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | G98 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 15 August 2008 (17 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 | 2048 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.120 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0208 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 4 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
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 | no data | MXM-I |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 11.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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 | 62 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 43 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 27 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+16900%
|
1−2
−16900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 68 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1157%
|
7−8
−1157%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+540%
|
24−27
−540%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 89 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+2182%
|
10−12
−2182%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+1375%
|
8−9
−1375%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 64 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1157%
|
7−8
−1157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+540%
|
24−27
−540%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+1300%
|
8−9
−1300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1157%
|
7−8
−1157%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+540%
|
24−27
−540%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+16100%
|
1−2
−16100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8600%
|
2−3
−8600%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+19600%
|
1−2
−19600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 66 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+214%
|
14−16
−214%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+13100%
|
1−2
−13100%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 13100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed NVS 150M in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.95 | 0.17 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 15 August 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 10 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 12811.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 712.5% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 150M, on the other hand, has 500% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 150M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 150M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
