GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs RTX 5080
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 5080 with GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms RTX 3050 A Mobile by a whopping 216% 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 | 4 | 224 |
| Place by popularity | 93 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 47.98 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.47 | 46.81 |
| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GB203 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 January 2025 (less than a year ago) | 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 10752 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 2295 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2617 MHz | 1343 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 45,600 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 879.3 | 75.21 |
| Floating-point processing power | 56.28 TFLOPS | 4.813 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 112 | 32 |
| TMUs | 336 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | 336 | 56 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 84 | 14 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 304 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-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 | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1875 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 960.0 GB/s | 192.0 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 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 10.1 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | + | + |
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.
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.
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 | 205
+242%
| 60−65
−242%
|
| 1440p | 157
+249%
| 45−50
−249%
|
| 4K | 107
+257%
| 30−35
−257%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.87 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.36 | no data |
| 4K | 9.34 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+232%
|
100−105
−232%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+227%
|
70−75
−227%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+228%
|
40−45
−228%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+228%
|
60−65
−228%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+232%
|
100−105
−232%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+227%
|
70−75
−227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240−250
+220%
|
75−80
−220%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+218%
|
95−100
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+244%
|
100−105
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+228%
|
75−80
−228%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+228%
|
40−45
−228%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+229%
|
190−200
−229%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+228%
|
60−65
−228%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+232%
|
100−105
−232%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+227%
|
85−90
−227%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+227%
|
70−75
−227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240−250
+220%
|
75−80
−220%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+218%
|
95−100
−218%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+244%
|
100−105
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 240−250
+228%
|
75−80
−228%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+216%
|
55−60
−216%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+261%
|
18−20
−261%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+228%
|
40−45
−228%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 400−450
+240%
|
120−130
−240%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+229%
|
190−200
−229%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+228%
|
60−65
−228%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+227%
|
70−75
−227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240−250
+220%
|
75−80
−220%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+244%
|
100−105
−244%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 130−140
+228%
|
40−45
−228%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 282
+232%
|
85−90
−232%
|
| Valorant | 600−650
+229%
|
190−200
−229%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+218%
|
95−100
−218%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 290−300
+231%
|
90−95
−231%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+223%
|
160−170
−223%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+236%
|
50−55
−236%
|
| Metro Exodus | 173
+246%
|
50−55
−246%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+218%
|
55−60
−218%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+223%
|
150−160
−223%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+227%
|
60−65
−227%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+222%
|
45−50
−222%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+233%
|
70−75
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+222%
|
95−100
−222%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 120−130
+218%
|
40−45
−218%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+237%
|
70−75
−237%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+236%
|
45−50
−236%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+244%
|
16−18
−244%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180−190
+240%
|
55−60
−240%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+220%
|
40−45
−220%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 236
+237%
|
70−75
−237%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+231%
|
100−105
−231%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+240%
|
40−45
−240%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+245%
|
40−45
−245%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+243%
|
21−24
−243%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+216%
|
55−60
−216%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+221%
|
95−100
−221%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+220%
|
30−33
−220%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 110−120
+231%
|
35−40
−231%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
+229%
|
24−27
−229%
|
This is how RTX 5080 and RTX 3050 A Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 5080 is 242% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5080 is 249% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5080 is 257% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 87.24 | 27.65 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 360 Watt | 45 Watt |
RTX 5080 has a 215.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 3050 A Mobile, on the other hand, has 700% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 5080 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile 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.
