GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms 3000M by a whopping 859% 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 | 888 | 271 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 82 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.45 | 29.36 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | 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 | 240 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 51
−35.3%
| 69
+35.3%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−1000%
| 33
+1000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82 | no data |
| 1440p | 132.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2117%
|
130−140
+2117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1520%
|
81
+1520%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1229%
|
90−95
+1229%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2117%
|
130−140
+2117%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1180%
|
64
+1180%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1317%
|
85
+1317%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−867%
|
110−120
+867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−675%
|
90−95
+675%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1380%
|
70−75
+1380%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−658%
|
90−95
+658%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−288%
|
160−170
+288%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1229%
|
90−95
+1229%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2117%
|
130−140
+2117%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−443%
|
250−260
+443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−820%
|
46
+820%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−384%
|
120−130
+384%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1200%
|
78
+1200%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−867%
|
110−120
+867%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−675%
|
90−95
+675%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1380%
|
70−75
+1380%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−1740%
|
92
+1740%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−658%
|
90−95
+658%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−911%
|
91
+911%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−288%
|
160−170
+288%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1229%
|
90−95
+1229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−680%
|
39
+680%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−384%
|
120−130
+384%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1038%
|
90−95
+1038%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1133%
|
74
+1133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−675%
|
90−95
+675%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−658%
|
90−95
+658%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−456%
|
50
+456%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−288%
|
160−170
+288%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−867%
|
110−120
+867%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−828%
|
160−170
+828%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−657%
|
170−180
+657%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−905%
|
200−210
+905%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−940%
|
50−55
+940%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1200%
|
52
+1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1300%
|
55−60
+1300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1042%
|
130−140
+1042%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−1183%
|
75−80
+1183%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4000%
|
40−45
+4000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 35% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 1000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 4000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile performs better in 55 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.37 | 22.74 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 60 Watt |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 859.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
