GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated162
Place by popularitynot in top-10011
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data69.20
Power efficiencyno data18.46
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameVega 10GA106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 October 2017 (7 years ago)4 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores40962560
Core clock speed1156 MHz1552 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHz1777 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate319.2142.2
Floating-point processing powerno data9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs25680
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length152 mm242 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 8-pin

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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1600 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s224.0 GB/s

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan-1.3
CUDA-8.6

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 4 January 2022
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 130 Watt

RTX 3050 8 GB has an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 92.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano and GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 11746 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.