GeForce RTX 5050 vs Quadro 3000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 3000M with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms 3000M by a whopping 1596% 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 | 883 | 114 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 51 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 98.04 |
| Power efficiency | 2.46 | 24.04 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5050 has 89027% better value for money than Quadro 3000M.
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 | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 18.00 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.432 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 24 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 625 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 320.0 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 12.0 |
| 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.
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
−1567%
| 850−900
+1567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.82
−2570%
| 0.29
+2570%
|
- RTX 5050 has 2570% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1592%
|
220−230
+1592%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1567%
|
700−750
+1567%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
−1496%
|
750−800
+1496%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1500%
|
400−450
+1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1592%
|
220−230
+1592%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1567%
|
150−160
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1567%
|
700−750
+1567%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−1500%
|
400−450
+1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−1592%
|
220−230
+1592%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−1567%
|
150−160
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−1567%
|
700−750
+1567%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−1567%
|
300−310
+1567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1422%
|
350−400
+1422%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−1567%
|
350−400
+1567%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
−1500%
|
80−85
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1567%
|
250−260
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1567%
|
200−210
+1567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
This is how Quadro 3000M and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 1567% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.40 | 40.71 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 130 Watt |
Quadro 3000M has 73.3% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 1596.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 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 5050 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
