GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Quadro K3000M

Place in the ranking	680	309
Place by popularity	not in top-100	25
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.73	36.95
Power efficiency	3.91	13.42
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK104	GA107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	27 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$155	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 4 GB has 2036% better value for money than K3000M.

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	576	2048
Core clock speed	654 MHz	1545 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1740 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	90 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.39	111.4
Floating-point processing power	0.7534 TFLOPS	7.127 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	64
Tensor Cores	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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 4.0 x8
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 6-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	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	89.6 GB/s	192.0 GB/s
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	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6

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.

K3000M 4.27

RTX 3050 4 GB 17.60
+312%

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.

K3000M 1643

RTX 3050 4 GB 6780
+313%

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:

900p	33 −294%	130−140 +294%
Full HD	33 −294%	130−140 +294%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

4.70

1.53

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
−286%

27−30

+286%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −275%	45−50 +275%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −275%	45−50 +275%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Hitman 3	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −293%	110−120 +293%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −309%	180−190 +309%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −275%	45−50 +275%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −275%	45−50 +275%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Hitman 3	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −293%	110−120 +293%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −309%	45−50 +309%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −309%	180−190 +309%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −275%	45−50 +275%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −286%	27−30 +286%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%
Hitman 3	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −293%	110−120 +293%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −306%	65−70 +306%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −309%	180−190 +309%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−309%

45−50
+309%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −275%	30−33 +275%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 −300%	24−27 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −300%	24−27 +300%
Hitman 3	9−10 −289%	35−40 +289%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −300%	40−45 +300%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 −285%	100−105 +285%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
−275%

30−33

+275%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
−260%

18−20

+260%

This is how K3000M and RTX 3050 4 GB compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 4 GB is 294% faster in 900p
RTX 3050 4 GB is 294% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.27	17.60
Recency	1 June 2012	27 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	90 Watt

K3000M has 20% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 4 GB, on the other hand, has a 312.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K3000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.