GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs RTX 6000 Ada Generation
Aggregate performance score
We've compared RTX 6000 Ada Generation with GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms RTX 3050 6 GB by a whopping 165% 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 | 24 | 252 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.26 | 70.75 |
| Power efficiency | 17.46 | 28.20 |
| Architecture | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | AD102 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 December 2022 (3 years ago) | 2 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $6,799 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 3050 6 GB has 2070% better value for money than RTX 6000 Ada Generation.
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 | 18176 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 915 MHz | 1042 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2505 MHz | 1470 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 76,300 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 1,423 | 105.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 91.06 TFLOPS | 6.774 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 192 | 32 |
| TMUs | 568 | 72 |
| Tensor Cores | 568 | 72 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 142 | 18 |
| L1 Cache | 17.8 MB | 2.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 96 MB | 2 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 16-pin | None |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 960.0 GB/s | 168.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.9 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 185
+185%
| 65−70
−185%
|
| 1440p | 161
+168%
| 60−65
−168%
|
| 4K | 108
+170%
| 40−45
−170%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 36.75
−1235%
| 2.75
+1235%
|
| 1440p | 42.23
−1316%
| 2.98
+1316%
|
| 4K | 62.95
−1307%
| 4.48
+1307%
|
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 1235% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 1316% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 1307% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+188%
|
110−120
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 160−170
+168%
|
60−65
−168%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+177%
|
65−70
−177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+188%
|
110−120
−188%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+189%
|
45−50
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+175%
|
110−120
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+175%
|
100−105
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 160−170
+168%
|
60−65
−168%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+166%
|
150−160
−166%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+177%
|
65−70
−177%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+188%
|
110−120
−188%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+179%
|
100−105
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+180%
|
45−50
−180%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+175%
|
110−120
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+175%
|
100−105
−175%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+187%
|
60−65
−187%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 160−170
+168%
|
60−65
−168%
|
| Metro Exodus | 114
+185%
|
40−45
−185%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 489
+172%
|
180−190
−172%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+166%
|
150−160
−166%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+177%
|
65−70
−177%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+169%
|
45−50
−169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+195%
|
40−45
−195%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+175%
|
100−105
−175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 160−170
+168%
|
60−65
−168%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+168%
|
65−70
−168%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 260
+174%
|
95−100
−174%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+166%
|
150−160
−166%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+175%
|
110−120
−175%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+169%
|
80−85
−169%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+172%
|
190−200
−172%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+190%
|
50−55
−190%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+171%
|
35−40
−171%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+169%
|
65−70
−169%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+169%
|
180−190
−169%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+174%
|
65−70
−174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+189%
|
35−40
−189%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+167%
|
45−50
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+195%
|
40−45
−195%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 240−250
+167%
|
90−95
−167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+166%
|
35−40
−166%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 219
+174%
|
80−85
−174%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+175%
|
55−60
−175%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+186%
|
14−16
−186%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+178%
|
60−65
−178%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+200%
|
30−33
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+183%
|
65−70
−183%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+174%
|
120−130
−174%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+193%
|
45−50
−193%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+173%
|
30−33
−173%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+188%
|
40−45
−188%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+179%
|
70−75
−179%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+174%
|
35−40
−174%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+193%
|
27−30
−193%
|
This is how RTX 6000 Ada Generation and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 185% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 168% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 170% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 68.21 | 25.70 |
| Recency | 3 December 2022 | 2 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 48 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 70 Watt |
RTX 6000 Ada Generation has a 165.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 3050 6 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 328.6% lower power consumption.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
