GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon HD 8350G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8350G with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms HD 8350G by a whopping 4755% 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 | 1237 | 208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 58.16 |
| Power efficiency | 1.35 | 17.64 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
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 | 128 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 1552 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 1777 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.760 | 142.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1843 TFLOPS | 9.098 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 242 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 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 | No outputs | 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 | 11.2 (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 | 1.3 |
| 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.
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 | 10
−4400%
| 450−500
+4400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.55 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−4637%
|
900−950
+4637%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−4445%
|
500−550
+4445%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4733%
|
290−300
+4733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10
−4400%
|
450−500
+4400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4733%
|
290−300
+4733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−4567%
|
700−750
+4567%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
This is how HD 8350G and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 8 GB is 4400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 30.10 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 130 Watt |
HD 8350G has 271.4% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 8 GB, on the other hand, has a 4754.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8350G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8350G is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 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.
