GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs NVS 510
Aggregate performance score
We've compared NVS 510 with GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 A Mobile outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 1538% 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 | 987 | 244 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.57 | 45.43 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | 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 | 192 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1343 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.75 | 75.21 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.306 TFLOPS | 4.813 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 56 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 14 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | 1.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 160 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 891 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.51 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
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 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.61 | 26.37 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
NVS 510 has 28.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 A Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1537.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation 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.
