GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile vs Radeon Pro Vega 64
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 64 with GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro 64 outperforms RTX 3050 4GB Mobile by a substantial 39% 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 | 202 | 286 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 53 |
| Power efficiency | 9.47 | 28.46 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GN20-P0 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (4 years ago) |
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 | 4096 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1238 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 345.6 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.06 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 256 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | IGP | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 786 MHz | 12000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 402.4 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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | - |
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 | 85−90
+37.1%
| 62
−37.1%
|
| 1440p | 55−60
+27.9%
| 43
−27.9%
|
| 4K | 35−40
+34.6%
| 26
−34.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+0%
|
170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how Pro Vega 64 and RTX 3050 4GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 64 is 37% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 64 is 28% faster in 1440p
- Pro Vega 64 is 35% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.81 | 22.23 |
| Recency | 27 June 2017 | 11 May 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 60 Watt |
Pro Vega 64 has a 38.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 64 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 64 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3050 4GB 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.
