GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Quadro 3000M

Place in the ranking	821	201
Place by popularity	not in top-100	24
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.24	76.21
Power efficiency	2.36	27.18
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF104	GA107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 years ago)	2 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$398.96	$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 6 GB has 31654% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.

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	240	2304
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1042 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1470 MHz
Number of transistors	1,950 million	8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.00	105.8
Floating-point processing power	0.432 TFLOPS	6.774 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	40	72
Tensor Cores	no data	72
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	18

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	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	625 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	80 GB/s	168.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	2.1	8.6

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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58

RTX 3050 6 GB 27.75
+976%

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.

Quadro 3000M 995

RTX 3050 6 GB 10693
+975%

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

−880%

500−550
+880%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.82

0.36

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6

−900%

50−55
+900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −900%	60−65 +900%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −900%	50−55 +900%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Hitman 3	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 −950%	210−220 +950%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 −900%	110−120 +900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −900%	130−140 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −953%	400−450 +953%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−900%

60−65
+900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −900%	40−45 +900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −900%	30−33 +900%
Hitman 3	8−9 −963%	85−90 +963%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −971%	75−80 +971%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 −967%	160−170 +967%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−900%

60−65
+900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −950%	21−24 +950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −900%	10−11 +900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

−900%

40−45
+900%

This is how Quadro 3000M and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 6 GB is 880% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.58	27.75
Recency	22 February 2011	2 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	70 Watt

RTX 3050 6 GB has a 975.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 7.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.