Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS by a whopping 126% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 231 | 428 |
| Place by popularity | 56 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.17 | 18.71 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | no data |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 years ago) | 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 | 2048 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 40 Watt |
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 |
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 | LPDDR5x |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | 8448 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12_1 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 63
+61.5%
| 39
−61.5%
|
| 1440p | 45
+150%
| 18−20
−150%
|
| 4K | 29
+142%
| 12−14
−142%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+82.6%
|
23
−82.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+144%
|
27−30
−144%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+114%
|
35−40
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+81.8%
|
22
−81.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 115
+105%
|
56
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80
+186%
|
27−30
−186%
|
| Metro Exodus | 83
+177%
|
30−33
−177%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 87
+211%
|
27−30
−211%
|
| Valorant | 133
+217%
|
40−45
−217%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+114%
|
35−40
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30
+57.9%
|
19
−57.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+131%
|
16−18
−131%
|
| Dota 2 | 96
+167%
|
36
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+69.8%
|
40−45
−69.8%
|
| Fortnite | 120−130
+96.8%
|
60−65
−96.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 94
+95.8%
|
48
−95.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+132%
|
27−30
−132%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+139%
|
36
−139%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+86.7%
|
80−85
−86.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+92.9%
|
27−30
−92.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+139%
|
30−35
−139%
|
| Valorant | 68
+61.9%
|
40−45
−61.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 250−260
+67.3%
|
150−160
−67.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+114%
|
35−40
−114%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+52.9%
|
17
−52.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 31
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+149%
|
45−50
−149%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+74.4%
|
40−45
−74.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 81
+97.6%
|
41
−97.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+86.7%
|
80−85
−86.7%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+133%
|
40−45
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 48
+243%
|
14−16
−243%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+220%
|
14−16
−220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+133%
|
75−80
−133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
| World of Tanks | 160−170
+109%
|
75−80
−109%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+196%
|
24−27
−196%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+124%
|
24−27
−124%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+129%
|
16−18
−129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+144%
|
27−30
−144%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 44
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+134%
|
30−35
−134%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+130%
|
27−30
−130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+154%
|
12−14
−154%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 62% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 150% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 142% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 243% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.24 | 10.73 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 40 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 125.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS, on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Qualcomm SD X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
