GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs ATI Radeon Xpress 200M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Xpress 200M and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms ATI Xpress 200M by a whopping 43200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1486 | 227 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.73 |
| Architecture | R300 (2005−2008) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | RC410 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2005 (20 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 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 | 6 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 336 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 350 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 107 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 0.67 | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | no data |
| TMUs | 2 | 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 1.0 x16 | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 12000 MHz |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0 (9_0) | 12_2 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | no data |
| OpenCL | N/A | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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 | -0−1 | 73 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 35 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8000%
|
81
+8000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6300%
|
64
+6300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1433%
|
90−95
+1433%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−579%
|
160−170
+579%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−2722%
|
250−260
+2722%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4500%
|
46
+4500%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1413%
|
120−130
+1413%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1433%
|
90−95
+1433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−2933%
|
91
+2933%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−579%
|
160−170
+579%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1413%
|
120−130
+1413%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4600%
|
90−95
+4600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−1433%
|
90−95
+1433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−579%
|
160−170
+579%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 37 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−13600%
|
130−140
+13600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 17300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 27 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.05 | 21.65 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 43200% higher aggregate performance score, and a 1525% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 200M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
