GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Radeon PRO W7700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7700 with GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7700 outperforms RTX 3050 6 GB by a whopping 115% 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 | 54 | 252 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 11 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.46 | 69.03 |
| Power efficiency | 22.29 | 28.14 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 32 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 November 2023 (1 year ago) | 2 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 3050 6 GB has 119% better value for money than PRO W7700.
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 | 3072 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1900 MHz | 1042 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2600 MHz | 1470 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 28,100 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 499.2 | 105.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 31.95 TFLOPS | 6.774 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 72 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 72 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 18 |
| L0 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 2.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB | no data |
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 | 241 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-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 | 16 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |
| 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 2.1 | 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 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 52.30 | 24.32 |
| Recency | 13 November 2023 | 2 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 70 Watt |
PRO W7700 has a 115% higher aggregate performance score, a 166.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 3050 6 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 171.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7700 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.
