GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile vs Quadro FX 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 4000 with GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 A Mobile outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 11292% 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 | 1408 | 234 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.13 | 46.28 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | NV40 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2004 (21 years ago) | 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,199 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | no data | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 375 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1343 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 222 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.500 | 75.21 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.813 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 56 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 56 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 14 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | AGP 8x | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x Molex | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 192.0 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.24 | 27.34 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 142 Watt | 45 Watt |
RTX 3050 A Mobile has a 11291.7% higher aggregate performance score, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1525% more advanced lithography process, and 215.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 4000 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
