GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro FX 3000

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3000 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 3000
2003
256 MB DDR
0.18

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms FX 3000 by a whopping 13567% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1413223
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data28.79
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameNV35GN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date22 July 2003 (21 year ago)6 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$203 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 coresno data2560
Core clock speed400 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1492 MHz
Number of transistors135 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology130 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate3.200no data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceAGP 8xno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x Molexno 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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed425 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth27.2 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Videono data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX9.0a12_2
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

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 HD0−171
1440p-0−134

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 64
+0%
64
+0%
Far Cry 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 91
+0%
91
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 91
+0%
91
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50
+0%
50
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.18 24.60
Recency 22 July 2003 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 130 nm 8 nm

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 13566.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 19 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.

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

Be aware that Quadro FX 3000 is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3000
Quadro FX 3000
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 751 vote

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3000 or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.