GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms PRO 2100 by a whopping 414% 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 | 698 | 271 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 53 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.94 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.72 | 29.18 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 512 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 32 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 12−14
−483%
| 70
+483%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−467%
| 34
+467%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.42 | no data |
| 1440p | 24.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−565%
|
130−140
+565%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−800%
|
81
+800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−370%
|
45−50
+370%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−417%
|
90−95
+417%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−565%
|
130−140
+565%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−611%
|
64
+611%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−507%
|
85
+507%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−343%
|
90−95
+343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−517%
|
70−75
+517%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−370%
|
45−50
+370%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−406%
|
90−95
+406%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−417%
|
90−95
+417%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−565%
|
130−140
+565%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
−222%
|
250−260
+222%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−411%
|
46
+411%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−210%
|
120−130
+210%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−457%
|
78
+457%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−343%
|
90−95
+343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−517%
|
70−75
+517%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−513%
|
92
+513%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−370%
|
45−50
+370%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−538%
|
50−55
+538%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−406%
|
90−95
+406%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−600%
|
91
+600%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−417%
|
90−95
+417%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−333%
|
39
+333%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−210%
|
120−130
+210%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−429%
|
74
+429%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−343%
|
90−95
+343%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
−370%
|
45−50
+370%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−406%
|
90−95
+406%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−285%
|
50
+285%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−181%
|
160−170
+181%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−346%
|
110−120
+346%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−374%
|
160−170
+374%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−900%
|
40
+900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−427%
|
170−180
+427%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−308%
|
200−210
+308%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−550%
|
52
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−420%
|
24−27
+420%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−517%
|
37
+517%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−522%
|
55−60
+522%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−153%
|
40−45
+153%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−523%
|
130−140
+523%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−413%
|
75−80
+413%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−800%
|
27−30
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−583%
|
40−45
+583%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 483% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 467% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 3500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile performs better in 60 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.22 | 21.71 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 6 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 60 Watt |
PRO WX 2100 has 71.4% lower power consumption.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 414.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon PRO WX 2100 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 6GB 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.
