GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs ATI Radeon HD 5770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5770 with GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms ATI HD 5770 by a whopping 435% 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 | 707 | 275 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 44 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.77 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.87 | 22.12 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Juniper | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | 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 | 800 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 712 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1057 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.00 | 67.65 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.36 TFLOPS | 4.329 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 40 |
| TMUs | 40 | 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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 208 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 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 HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 24
−400%
| 120−130
+400%
|
| Full HD | 50
−86%
| 93
+86%
|
| 1440p | 9−10
−467%
| 51
+467%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−540%
| 32
+540%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.18 | no data |
| 1440p | 17.67 | no data |
| 4K | 31.80 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−641%
|
120−130
+641%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1225%
|
106
+1225%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5
−1075%
|
45−50
+1075%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−463%
|
90−95
+463%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−641%
|
120−130
+641%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−938%
|
83
+938%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−883%
|
118
+883%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−367%
|
110−120
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−345%
|
85−90
+345%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−980%
|
108
+980%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−406%
|
85−90
+406%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5
−1400%
|
60
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−463%
|
90−95
+463%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−641%
|
120−130
+641%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−241%
|
240−250
+241%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−663%
|
61
+663%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−357%
|
169
+357%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−792%
|
107
+792%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−367%
|
110−120
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−345%
|
85−90
+345%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−840%
|
94
+840%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−885%
|
128
+885%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−675%
|
62
+675%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−406%
|
85−90
+406%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5
−1300%
|
56
+1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−1300%
|
168
+1300%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−463%
|
90−95
+463%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−663%
|
61
+663%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−319%
|
155
+319%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−725%
|
99
+725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−345%
|
85−90
+345%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−406%
|
85−90
+406%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5
−1525%
|
65
+1525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−442%
|
65
+442%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−187%
|
150−160
+187%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
−367%
|
110−120
+367%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−488%
|
45−50
+488%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−413%
|
150−160
+413%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1325%
|
57
+1325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1100%
|
36
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−427%
|
170−180
+427%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−343%
|
190−200
+343%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6100%
|
60−65
+6100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−871%
|
68
+871%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−460%
|
55−60
+460%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
−1900%
|
40
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−620%
|
35−40
+620%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−550%
|
50−55
+550%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−256%
|
57
+256%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−514%
|
120−130
+514%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−615%
|
93
+615%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−680%
|
35−40
+680%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−475%
|
21−24
+475%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 2−3
−1100%
|
24
+1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how ATI HD 5770 and RTX 3050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 400% faster in 900p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 86% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 467% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 540% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3050 Mobile is 6100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Mobile is ahead in 60 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.07 | 21.77 |
| Recency | 13 October 2009 | 11 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 75 Watt |
RTX 3050 Mobile has a 434.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 400% more advanced lithography process, and 44% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5770 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5770 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 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.
