GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Radeon R5 M255

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, including specs and performance data.

R5 M255
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.40

RTX 3050 6 GB outperforms R5 M255 by a whopping 1866% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1013209
Place by popularitynot in top-10020
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data76.27
Power efficiencyno data27.39
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTopazGA107
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date12 October 2014 (10 years ago)2 February 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$179

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3842304
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed925 MHz1042 MHz
Boost clock speed940 MHz1470 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data70 Watt
Texture fill rate22.56105.8
Floating-point processing power0.7219 TFLOPS6.774 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2472
Tensor Coresno data72
Ray Tracing Coresno data18

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s168.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
Eyefinity+-
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.7
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed3.0
Vulkan-1.3
Mantle+-
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.

R5 M255 1.40
RTX 3050 6 GB 27.53
+1866%

  • Passmark

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.

R5 M255 542
RTX 3050 6 GB 10695
+1873%

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:

900p21
−1805%
400−450
+1805%
Full HD12
−1817%
230−240
+1817%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data0.78

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 5
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%
Forza Horizon 4 10
−1800%
190−200
+1800%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9
−1789%
170−180
+1789%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%
Dota 2 14
−1829%
270−280
+1829%
Far Cry 5 15
−1833%
290−300
+1833%
Fortnite 6−7
−1733%
110−120
+1733%
Forza Horizon 4 8
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Grand Theft Auto V 8
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
−1823%
250−260
+1823%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
World of Tanks 30−33
−1733%
550−600
+1733%
Battlefield 5 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%
Dota 2 21
−1805%
400−450
+1805%
Far Cry 5 10−12
−1809%
210−220
+1809%
Forza Horizon 4 8
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
−1833%
290−300
+1833%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−1789%
170−180
+1789%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
−1775%
150−160
+1775%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1733%
55−60
+1733%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Valorant 7−8
−1757%
130−140
+1757%
Dota 2 16−18
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1833%
290−300
+1833%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
−1775%
75−80
+1775%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1833%
290−300
+1833%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Dota 2 16−18
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Valorant 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

This is how R5 M255 and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6 GB is 1805% faster in 900p
  • RTX 3050 6 GB is 1817% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 27.53
Recency 12 October 2014 2 February 2024
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm

RTX 3050 6 GB has a 1866.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4
66 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8
1544 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 M255 or GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.