GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro 4000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 4000M with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms 4000M by a whopping 644% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 728 | 210 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.32 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.33 | 28.95 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 336 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 475 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) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 26.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6384 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 56 | 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 | - | - |
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 | no data |
API compatibility
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 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.
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 | 71
−2.8%
| 73
+2.8%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−825%
| 37
+825%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.32 | no data |
| 1440p | 112.25 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1250%
|
81
+1250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1071%
|
80−85
+1071%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−967%
|
64
+967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−729%
|
55−60
+729%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−668%
|
140−150
+668%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−379%
|
110−120
+379%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1620%
|
85−90
+1620%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−713%
|
65−70
+713%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−554%
|
85−90
+554%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−158%
|
100−110
+158%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−1071%
|
80−85
+1071%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−667%
|
46
+667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−729%
|
55−60
+729%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−668%
|
140−150
+668%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−379%
|
110−120
+379%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−1620%
|
85−90
+1620%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−713%
|
65−70
+713%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−562%
|
86
+562%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−260%
|
50−55
+260%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−158%
|
100−110
+158%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
−450%
|
55−60
+450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−2050%
|
40−45
+2050%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−550%
|
39
+550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−729%
|
55−60
+729%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−668%
|
140−150
+668%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
−379%
|
110−120
+379%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
−485%
|
76
+485%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−233%
|
50
+233%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
−158%
|
100−110
+158%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−713%
|
65−70
+713%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
−700%
|
45−50
+700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−660%
|
35−40
+660%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−1300%
|
27−30
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 140−150 |
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−550%
|
50−55
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1750%
|
37
+1750%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 20−22
−605%
|
140−150
+605%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−500%
|
40−45
+500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−3300%
|
30−35
+3300%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Hitman 3 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 4000M and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 3% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 825% 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 3300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 62 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.37 | 25.08 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 60 Watt |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 644.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 4000M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
