GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB vs Radeon HD 6740G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6740G2 with GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 4 GB outperforms HD 6740G2 by a whopping 945% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 938 | 318 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 32 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.53 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.63 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | no data | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 27 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 880 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1545 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1740 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.127 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 data | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−872%
|
350−400
+872%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−929%
|
350−400
+929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−900%
|
190−200
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−872%
|
350−400
+872%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−900%
|
190−200
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−872%
|
350−400
+872%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−900%
|
60−65
+900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−900%
|
110−120
+900%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−900%
|
100−105
+900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−900%
|
40−45
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−900%
|
150−160
+900%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−900%
|
80−85
+900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.71 | 17.87 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 27 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 4 GB has a 945% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6740G2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6740G2 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 4 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.
