GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms Apple M1 8-Core GPU by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 379 | 237 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 38 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 21.78 |
| Architecture | no data | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | no data | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 11 May 2021 (3 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 | 8 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 712 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1057 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 67.65 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.329 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 40 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.0 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 27
−244%
| 93
+244%
|
| 1440p | 30−35
−73.3%
| 52
+73.3%
|
| 4K | 18−20
−83.3%
| 33
+83.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−293%
|
106
+293%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
−132%
|
95
+132%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−62.2%
|
70−75
+62.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−170%
|
73
+170%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−184%
|
156
+184%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−197%
|
110
+197%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−52.9%
|
50−55
+52.9%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.9%
|
95−100
+75.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−62.2%
|
70−75
+62.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−107%
|
56
+107%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−190%
|
142
+190%
|
| Elden Ring | 40−45
−200%
|
123
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−150%
|
130
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−55.8%
|
120−130
+55.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−124%
|
123
+124%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
−161%
|
128
+161%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
−100%
|
74
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−52%
|
150−160
+52%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
−52.9%
|
50−55
+52.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
−81%
|
75−80
+81%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.9%
|
95−100
+75.9%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
−38.5%
|
250−260
+38.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−62.2%
|
70−75
+62.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−83.3%
|
40−45
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−88.9%
|
51
+88.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−216%
|
155
+216%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
−42.3%
|
70−75
+42.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−92.7%
|
106
+92.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−105
−52%
|
150−160
+52%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−75.9%
|
95−100
+75.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−200%
|
57
+200%
|
| Elden Ring | 21−24
−214%
|
66
+214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
−185%
|
57
+185%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
−59.6%
|
170−180
+59.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−83.3%
|
21−24
+83.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
−62.9%
|
150−160
+62.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−77.8%
|
45−50
+77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−180%
|
28
+180%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
−113%
|
65−70
+113%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−136%
|
78
+136%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−138%
|
69
+138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−100%
|
30−35
+100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−85.3%
|
60−65
+85.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−138%
|
57
+138%
|
| Elden Ring | 9−10
−267%
|
33
+267%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−138%
|
57
+138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−156%
|
23
+156%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−80%
|
70−75
+80%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
−138%
|
57
+138%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
−288%
|
93
+288%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−82.4%
|
30−35
+82.4%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−93.3%
|
27−30
+93.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−137%
|
45
+137%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−100%
|
30−33
+100%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and RTX 3050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 244% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 73% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3050 Mobile is 83% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX 3050 Mobile is 293% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 Mobile surpassed Apple M1 8-Core GPU in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.71 | 23.73 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 11 May 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 8 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 60% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 3050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 73.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
The GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the M1 8-Core GPU in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
