GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q vs Radeon RX Vega 64

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking117not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation55.49no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2021)Ampere (2020−2022)
GPU code nameVegaGA107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (6 years ago)11 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499 no data
Current price$125 (0.3x MSRP)$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores40962560
Core clock speed1630 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1546 MHz1035 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million8,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)295 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate395.882.80
Floating-point performance13,353 gflopsno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length279 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed945 MHz11 GB/s
Memory bandwidth483.8 GB/s176.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.1251.3
CUDAno data8.6

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2017 11 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 295 Watt 75 Watt

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 and GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q. 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
Radeon RX Vega 64
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q
GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q

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.


4.3 621 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 212 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 Ti Max-Q 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.