GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Quadro FX 4600

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.09

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms FX 4600 by a whopping 2183% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1095226
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.5628.77
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG80GN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 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 cores962560
Core clock speed500 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1492 MHz
Number of transistors681 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate24.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.2304 TFLOPSno data
ROPs24no data
TMUs24no 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
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no data
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount768 MB6 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Videono data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_2
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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 HD3−4
−2267%
71
+2267%
1440p1−2
−3300%
34
+3300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p666.33no data
1440p1999.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%
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%
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%
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%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
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%
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%
Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
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%
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%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how FX 4600 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 2267% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 3300% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.09 24.89
Recency 5 March 2007 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 60 Watt

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 2183.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 1025% more advanced lithography process, and 123.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4600 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 4600
Quadro FX 4600
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
13 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4
754 votes

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 4600 or GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.