GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs RTX 3090
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3090 with GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3090 outperforms 1050 Mobile 3 GB by a whopping 457% 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 | 37 | 451 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.76 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.94 | 11.69 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GA102 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2020 (5 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 10496 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1395 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1695 MHz | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 28,300 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 556.0 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 35.58 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 112 | 24 |
| TMUs | 328 | 48 |
| Tensor Cores | 328 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 82 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 10.3 MB | 288 KB |
| L2 Cache | 6 MB | 768 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 336 mm | no data |
| Width | 3-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 12-pin | 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 | GDDR6X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 936.2 GB/s | 84.1 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 8.5 | 6.1 |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 192
+540%
| 30−35
−540%
|
| 1440p | 124
+490%
| 21−24
−490%
|
| 4K | 84
+500%
| 14−16
−500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.81 | no data |
| 1440p | 12.09 | no data |
| 4K | 17.85 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 349
+482%
|
60−65
−482%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 209
+497%
|
35−40
−497%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 172
+473%
|
30−33
−473%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 347
+478%
|
60−65
−478%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 178
+493%
|
30−33
−493%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24
−476%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 208
+494%
|
35−40
−494%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+504%
|
50−55
−504%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 254
+464%
|
45−50
−464%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210
+500%
|
35−40
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+480%
|
30−33
−480%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+502%
|
60−65
−502%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 158
+485%
|
27−30
−485%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 309
+462%
|
55−60
−462%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+518%
|
45−50
−518%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 154
+470%
|
27−30
−470%
|
| Dota 2 | 217
+520%
|
35−40
−520%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24
−476%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 196
+460%
|
35−40
−460%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+504%
|
50−55
−504%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 247
+518%
|
40−45
−518%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 195
+457%
|
35−40
−457%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 171
+470%
|
30−33
−470%
|
| Metro Exodus | 176
+487%
|
30−33
−487%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+480%
|
30−33
−480%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 369
+468%
|
65−70
−468%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+502%
|
60−65
−502%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 146
+508%
|
24−27
−508%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 136
+467%
|
24−27
−467%
|
| Dota 2 | 213
+509%
|
35−40
−509%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+476%
|
21−24
−476%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+510%
|
30−33
−510%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 217
+520%
|
35−40
−520%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+480%
|
30−33
−480%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 182
+507%
|
30−33
−507%
|
| Valorant | 296
+492%
|
50−55
−492%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+504%
|
50−55
−504%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 231
+478%
|
40−45
−478%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+457%
|
90−95
−457%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150
+525%
|
24−27
−525%
|
| Metro Exodus | 115
+539%
|
18−20
−539%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+483%
|
30−33
−483%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+493%
|
75−80
−493%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130
+519%
|
21−24
−519%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93
+481%
|
16−18
−481%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+471%
|
21−24
−471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 171
+470%
|
30−33
−470%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 197
+463%
|
35−40
−463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 153
+467%
|
27−30
−467%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+459%
|
27−30
−459%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 59
+490%
|
10−11
−490%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 182
+507%
|
30−33
−507%
|
| Metro Exodus | 76
+533%
|
12−14
−533%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+470%
|
27−30
−470%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+498%
|
55−60
−498%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 113
+528%
|
18−20
−528%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+521%
|
14−16
−521%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+475%
|
8−9
−475%
|
| Dota 2 | 202
+477%
|
35−40
−477%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+500%
|
18−20
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 153
+467%
|
27−30
−467%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+500%
|
16−18
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+464%
|
14−16
−464%
|
This is how RTX 3090 and GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 3090 is 540% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3090 is 490% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3090 is 500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 63.56 | 11.42 |
| Recency | 1 September 2020 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 24 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 350 Watt | 75 Watt |
RTX 3090 has a 456.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, on the other hand, has 366.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3090 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
