GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

Place in performance ranking	162	184
Place by popularity	not in top-100	44
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.16	37.75
Architecture	Vega (2017−2021)	Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code name	Vega	GA107
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	14 December 2017 (6 years ago)	2 February 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$399	$179
Current price	$4999 (12.5x MSRP)	$204 (1.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3050 6 GB has 1095% better value for money than Pro Vega 56.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	3584	2304
Core clock speed	1247 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1250 MHz	1470 MHz
Number of transistors	12,500 million	8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	280.0	105.8
Floating-point performance	9,677 gflops	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 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	267 mm	242 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	HBM2	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	2048 Bit	96 Bit
Memory clock speed	786 MHz	14 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	402.4 GB/s	168.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	+	+

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.125	1.3
CUDA	no data	8.6

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 56 31.99
+14.7%

RTX 3050 6 GB 27.88

Radeon Pro Vega 56 outperforms GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB by 15% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Pro Vega 56 12353
+14.7%

RTX 3050 6 GB 10766

Radeon Pro Vega 56 outperforms GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB by 15% in Passmark.

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	101 +18.8%	85−90 −18.8%
4K	65 +18.2%	55−60 −18.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

50−55
+20%

45−50

−20%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +16%	50−55 −16%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +22.2%	45−50 −22.2%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +15.6%	90−95 −15.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +18.2%	55−60 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +20%	45−50 −20%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +20%	60−65 −20%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +15.7%	70−75 −15.7%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +18.2%	110−120 −18.2%
Hitman 3	65−70 +20%	55−60 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +16.4%	110−120 −16.4%
Metro Exodus	95−100 +15.3%	85−90 −15.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85 +15.7%	70−75 −15.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +17%	100−105 −17%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +20%	70−75 −20%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +16%	50−55 −16%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +22.2%	45−50 −22.2%
Battlefield 5	100−110 +15.6%	90−95 −15.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +18.2%	55−60 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +20%	45−50 −20%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +20%	60−65 −20%
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85 +15.7%	70−75 −15.7%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +18.2%	110−120 −18.2%
Hitman 3	65−70 +20%	55−60 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +16.4%	110−120 −16.4%
Metro Exodus	95−100 +15.3%	85−90 −15.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80−85 +15.7%	70−75 −15.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +17%	100−105 −17%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	116 +16%	100−105 −16%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +20%	70−75 −20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +16%	50−55 −16%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55−60 +22.2%	45−50 −22.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +18.2%	55−60 −18.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	50−55 +20%	45−50 −20%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +20%	60−65 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +18.2%	110−120 −18.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +16.4%	110−120 −16.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	110−120 +17%	100−105 −17%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	64 +16.4%	55−60 −16.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +20%	70−75 −20%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

80−85
+15.7%

70−75

−15.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65 +22%	50−55 −22%
Far Cry New Dawn	70−75 +20%	60−65 −20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−35 +25.9%	27−30 −25.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	30−35 +25.9%	27−30 −25.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	45−50 +15%	40−45 −15%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +26.7%	45−50 −26.7%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +18.2%	55−60 −18.2%
Hitman 3	40−45 +33.3%	30−33 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	65−70 +23.6%	55−60 −23.6%
Metro Exodus	60−65 +22%	50−55 −22%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70−75 +23.3%	60−65 −23.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40−45 +22.9%	35−40 −22.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

50−55
+20%

45−50

−20%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +18.5%	27−30 −18.5%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Hitman 3	24−27 +23.8%	21−24 −23.8%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +30%	30−33 −30%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +33.3%	18−20 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	42 +20%	35−40 −20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20−22 +25%	16−18 −25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +18.8%	16−18 −18.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Far Cry 5	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%
Forza Horizon 4	40−45 +25.7%	35−40 −25.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +30%	30−33 −30%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +18.5%	27−30 −18.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30
+16.7%

24−27

−16.7%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:

Pro Vega 56 is 19% faster in 1080p
Pro Vega 56 is 18% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.99	27.88
Recency	14 December 2017	2 February 2024
Cost	$399	$179
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	210 Watt	70 Watt